Getting it right in camera, or ....

I think this is where the disconnect is happening in this thread.
Some myself included are thinking getting it right in camera is similar to the SOOC folks which is why I said no to wildlife. The others are calling getting right in camera what I would call getting it as right as you can, which to me every photographer does.

 

It is "getting it as right as you can". Sometimes that means underexposing or overexposing or spot metering off this or that, knowing that it will be easier to attain the image you previsualized, by capturing an image which looks undesirable/less-than-desirable/crappy on the LCD ... but will easily post up well, matching your mental image.

But for me, it is more than that, it is also framing. I am striving to not crop in post. I had attained that level of proficiency back when I was shooting news every working day. There is generally a lot of action in news images and sports was a significant segment of a news genre. I shot news with a get-it-right-in-the-camera, no post cropping mentality. Even and especially the actions assignments which made getting-it-right-in-the-camera much more challenging. When I shot news, it was back in the dinosaur days of film only. I filed out the negative carrier so the black borders outside the negative were also printed indicating no cropping in post. If the photo required cropping or even straightening out of the horizon ... then 99 times out of 100, it got dumped. (Occasionally an image was too good to be dumped because of a crooked horizon.)

I desire to get back to that level of proficiency.

I now give much more thought to the image I seek to capture. I am now shooting single frame. I am waiting for the peak of action before releasing the shutter. I am moving away from zoom to primes. I am shooting more deliberately with an anticipatory methodology, mindset and instinct rather than a reactionary approach. Challenging myself, improving my proficiency and skills is an important element in my photographic passion.

I am shooting less frames ... but what I capture is much better. Much better than when I was shooting Max FPS and culling down to the best.

 

Very true Gary, It's about making the image rather than taking the image. A little forethought goes a long way.

 

Some good discussion here about this topic. As I think about it, I guess that getting it right in camera is something that I started looking hard at in December. By this, I mean being able to shoot sports images for the paper in jpeg instead of raw. That way I can quickly get the images to them and not have to spend as much time processing images that aren't paying me a lot of money. That way I can focus on other things.

The issue that I am finding really hard about this entire process for me is that even if I get an image that I feel is right SOOC, I still feel like I need to work on it in either LR or PS.

 

Very interesting to see all the different perspectives on the topic.

 

I've been on the "getting it right in the camera" side of the fence for quite some time now. Works just fine for my photography interests.

Tony

tonybritton

Favorite Canon SX50 HS Photographs - Tony Britton

 

PS- For me, it is a slippery slope once I easily accept correcting my errors in post. It makes an already lazy person even more lazy. Once I tell myself don't worry about that telephone pole, just center the needle on the light meter, the horizon doesn't matter, et cetera ... then I get lazy on other stuff, composition, the quality of light, direction of light and shadows, telling the story to its fullest, et al. My goal is to capture the exceptional photo, not the good or average image. For me, capturing the exceptional image require attention to detail at every step including post. But once I start cutting corners in the field, knowing I can fix it in post, my photographic skill level drops and my eye become less keen and I shoot reacting to the story instead of anticipating how the story will be unfolding and where I need to be and how best I should adjust the camera to capture my anticipated image. There is a difference between a photographer and a digital artist.

But this is me. We all see and shoot differently. I imagine most/all/some of you are not as lazy as I and are able to grow and increase your photographic skills while not getting it right in the camera. And I salute you. It is not a slippery slope for you. But for me, working on getting-it-right-in-the-camera is a challenge that I use to increase my photographic skills and not my post production image manipulation skills.

 

Thank you for the suggestion. I have been PM'ing members here on various occasion that have or are using the camera but not much resolved. As far as posting, well I have found that can be somewhat a hornet's nest for a noob like me. I did that with my Sigma 150-600 issues and it made me confused and I ended up just sending it in like I thought originally, and it was defective x 2. I suspect I have a crap D7200. I am going to really get back to basics this year and shoot mostly film, as I am pretty much over the digital experiment. At some point, I want to start to produce quality images, very disappointed with digital in general. May be I have an analog mind? Probably just ignorant. I am not impressed with the D7200 at all for getting right in camera. The meter is off by -1 to -2 stops depending. Focus is way off as well, I printed a target and well lets just say, don't get me started, because it sucks... but common sense tells me that if I have to spend two hours with each lens I own to calibrate it in the camera, then there is an issue and it ain't me... thats what Nikon customer service tells me to do (fukstiks) and use your EC, I say why? is the meter not right with the sun to my back and I am close to my subject?.... silence..... Nobody tells you that crap in the reviews. The camera is a piece of crap. I am at a point of throwing it away, my most expensive camera and the worst of them all.

 

I consider 'get it right in the camera' a tool, not the goal.

 

I think that get it right in camera is ok for some types of studio work, but it really just shows a lack of ability to do good editing. Not every photographer is an artist and sometimes getting a good documentary shot is the most important thing, in those cases getting it right in the camera is a must.
Shooting high resolution video works for some things as well because it lets you find the frame for the content you want and then be able to crop for composition and still get a good resolution print from it.

I used to see a lot of photos labeled as SOOC as if that was a good thing or a bragging point and to me it just said NVGAE (not very good at editing). But of course sometimes a document is what is needed, I like making artwork though and that takes a fair amount of editing and a high skill level.

 

Lots of really good input on this one so far.

My approach to capturing images is dependent upon the goals I have.

My position on this is that I'll do whatever's necessary to create the image I want. That usually means putting a tremendous amount of effort into getting the capture as good as possible in camera (more on that, below). But it also includes whatever I feel like doing in post. (more, below). So I do a combination of both, with a priority on the capture, and then backup support from editing.

Getting it right in camera, for me, means capturing the highest quality possible, from a technical standpoint as well as an artistic standpoint. For example, getting as close as possible to the subject (usually wildlife or macro...and getting close ethically, mind you) to avoid having to crop significantly. Less cropping means higher quality in most cases. Do I account for post processing cropping options by not always filling the frame? Sure, when appropriate or needed. It all depends on the situation. Then there are things like sharpness, shutter speed, DOF, lighting, and the list goes on. All important to me to get right in camera.

The biggest one for me, as a fine art image creator, is the clean background and lack of distractions. I'll do whatever I can in the field to get that. I'll plan for it, scout locations, decide when I should not shoot, move around and position myself for a clean background, lay on the ground, etc. The advantages to getting the background right in camera are: More natural looking result, higher image quality, less time spent in post processing, etc (changing or blurring a bg behind a wildlife or macro subject can often be extremely time consuming, challenging, and may not always result in a natural looking and high quality image.) To summarize, for me, getting it right in camera is about making the highest quality fine art image possible. And I often make close up portraits of birds and other detailed subjects, requiring all of these technical things to be done well in camera.

On the other hand, I'll do whatever I want in post processing to create the image I want. I create art, not documentary images. So if I did everything I could in the field, but still couldn't get everything "perfect" I will do something about it in Photoshop. The main point, which others mentioned, is that I'm using it as a tool to polish the best shot I could capture, not as a crutch to fix a lack of skill, or laziness.

It's all about knowing what I want to create and then doing what I need to in order to make it happen. That's it.