Getting it right in camera, or ....

[robbins.photo]

Ok, got to thinking about this today. I see a lot of folks talking about "getting it right on camera", meaning of course getting the shot to the look as close to the final product as they can with minimal editing.

It seems to be a point of pride with many, a goal to which they aspire. I gave it some thought and realized, nope, not how I shoot.

I could very well be in the minority here, but for what I shoot getting it "on camera" is more important than getting it "right" on camera. When I shoot I'm usually shooting at something moving or something that could start moving at any given moment. For this and other reasons, such as the fact that I'm often working with some rather cluttered backgrounds, I generally shoot wide intentionally.

I don't focus on composition on camera, I just want enough room to make recomposing in post possible. At least for what I do I find it gives me the best final results, being able to decide in post how I want to frame things, what is going to lead to the best final result with the least amount of distractions in the background, etc...

So I'm kind of interested to hear from other folks there thoughts and opinions of "getting it right on camera". No right or wrong answers of course, just curious as to other peoples thoughts on the subject.

 

[goooner]

I agree, when I take landscapes or architecture I try and get it right in camera, but leaving a little so that I can straighten without losing too much. 9 times out of 10 I don't have to straighten, but having to straighten and losing something important really bugs me. With wildlife and birds I often shoot a little wider, often not by choice, but because of reach limitations. I got my 1st raptor shot last week with my 600mm and clipped the tail, am still pi$$ed about that.

 

[Overread]

Getting it right in camera is about teaching a way of thinking for the person learning (hence why it comes up here a lot as we have a lot of learners) so that they develop the right approach to photography. Or at least the approach that most consider to be the most beneficial in the long run - that is learning to compose and capture the best possible shot within the constraints of the moment so as to minimise their editing stages later.


This doesn't always mean that the shot is perfect in camera; indeed for many situations its very difficult (esp without YEARS of practice and experience) to get it perfect. But what you do is you get it as close as you can.

You speak that you don't get it perfect in camera; but I'm betting even on the fast shots you aim to get the exposure as good as you can get; you aim to get the shutter speed fast enough to freeze the motion (or blur it if that's what you wish); that you aim to not underexpose and incure undue noise and you speak of how you aim to capture the motion with room to crop in editing. You ARE getting it right in camera - you are working within the constrains of the situation to make it work for you so that when you get to the computer you have something to work with that's good.

You are already working within the method; however you have reached a point where many of hte thoughts are no longer at the forefront of your mind; where you've shifted into a working methodology and approach that works for you. That's good; that's what we all do and i think its a healthy approach; although I would argue that for most its good to often review our method. To every so often push ourselves a little more or refresh our minds to our original process (as time goes on little things slip - we get lazy and drop doing things that we don't "have" to do and little things like that can slip up otherwise very good shots). And trying new things or a new approach is always good; teaches or reminds us good things and gives another tool in the bag to use.

 

[SquarePeg]

For still subjects like flowers and landscapes, I don't want to have to crop so I try to frame it as I want from the start. Sometimes that's not possible but I do like to really look at what's in the frame before I shoot. For other things where I don't have the available light, I will purposely underexpose then bring things up in post and use noise reduction software to compensate for any high ISO shots.

I think what you are doing works great for moving subjects as long as you have sharp enough focus and plenty of pixels to crop in when needed.

 

[table1349]

Ok, got to thinking about this today. I see a lot of folks talking about "getting it right on camera", meaning of course getting the shot to the look as close to the final product as they can with minimal editing.

It seems to be a point of pride with many, a goal to which they aspire. I gave it some thought and realized, nope, not how I shoot.

I could very well be in the minority here, but for what I shoot getting it "on camera" is more important than getting it "right" on camera. When I shoot I'm usually shooting at something moving or something that could start moving at any given moment. For this and other reasons, such as the fact that I'm often working with some rather cluttered backgrounds, I generally shoot wide intentionally.

I don't focus on composition on camera, I just want enough room to make recomposing in post possible. At least for what I do I find it gives me the best final results, being able to decide in post how I want to frame things, what is going to lead to the best final result with the least amount of distractions in the background, etc...

So I'm kind of interested to hear from other folks there thoughts and opinions of "getting it right on camera". No right or wrong answers of course, just curious as to other peoples thoughts on the subject.

Your post indicates that YOU ARE interested in GETTING IT RIGHT IN CAMERA. Getting it right as decided by you. What else is there????

 

[smoke665]

It took a bit to soak through this hard head, but the lights finally came on. Most of this past year I was so focused on learning to use LR and PS, that I got very sloppy in camera. My resolution for 2017 is to get it right in camera so I don't have to correct it in post. Less time on computer = more time behind the camera.

 

[SCraig]

I don't focus on composition on camera, I just want enough room to make recomposing in post possible. At least for what I do I find it gives me the best final results, being able to decide in post how I want to frame things, what is going to lead to the best final result with the least amount of distractions in the background, etc...

Ditto. Most of what I shoot is gone in a few seconds. If I sit there worrying about every little nuance I might just as well leave my camera at home because I'll come back with nothing.

I try to get the exposure close, I don't care if it's perfect because I can fix it. I use the shutter speed I want for background and foreground, and try to strike a compromise between plenty of room to crop and maintaining detail. As long as I can fix it with editing I'm happy.

 

[zombiesniper]

I do it both ways now.

Wildlife I set up the camera for the light and a fast moving subject. I try and leave room to crop. Animals and birds make that easy by buggering off. lol
Sometimes I do a decent job. Other days the birds kick me in the ass and let me know I wasn't on my game. Could I have gotten any wildlife shot more right in camera. Hell ya. Train that Snowy to fly when and where I tell it and I'll kill it. Not an option so I get it as right as I can.

For studio (with my now expansive one week of experience) yes I try to get it as right in camera as possible.

 

[jcdeboever]

I want to get them right in camera because if I can consistently, then I have a better chance of creating an image the way I want it look. If I could establish a measurable base then I should be able to adjust in camera for what ever creative pre-vision I have for an image.

For me, a limitation has always been the viewfinder. It's a visual thing for me. OK, so I upgraded to a D7200 with the nice viewfinder but the majority of the images are underexposed vs. the D3300, even when the camera says it is spot on. Talk about wanting to wave a white flag. So I assumed the upgrade would get me closer to my goal. NOPE, it's worse now because exposure is so inconsistent, makes me not want to use that camera. My Canon SX60HS is the most consistent camera I have but it lacks aperture, limited at f/8. So I have basically wasted thousands of dollars chasing something I didn't understand when I started. If I knew what I know now (which ain't much), I would have started (a little over year ago) with a Fujifilm X-T1 and bought three primes.

 

[Dave442]

What I did start doing much better last year was to have the camera at the angle I wanted it - to eliminate rotating the image in post. I found that if I had to rotate the image it can ruin that careful in-camera framing by having something cropped off too much after the rotation.

I would definitely leave room on BIF shots, I have way too many shots with clipped wings.

 

[Overread]

Composing a photo so that you capture the action in a split second with room to crop and giving room to ensure that you don't clip parts of the subject is still getting it right in camera. You are working with the the limits of action - sure you have to crop in editing, but you've made sure that you've got all of the subject you want in a repeatable manner that is reliable in-camera; instead of trying to compose perfectly and ending up clipping parts and missing a lot of shot because of the subject moving not where you want it to.

Again remember getting it right in camera isn't about getting it perfect; its about getting it as close as you can practically get. It's about not being lazy and just shooting without thinking; or going into the shot with the view that mistakes will be fixed in editing etc...

I suspect most who post to forums are already trying to or do shoot to get it right in camera. Indeed I think most photographers aim to do so because its far more pleasing to see your result on the back/first thing in the computer and be happy with that moment.

jcdeboever start a thread about that issue; you shouldn't be getting constant exposure problems with your camera; heck a dslr in auto should work as well as any point and shoot for getting proper exposure. Either something is up with the camera; or youv'e got a custom setting wrong or you've got an error in your shooting that is likely quite basic but which you're not aware of and thus can't fix. Post up some details and examples and we can see if we can work through that problem.

 

[snowbear]

It's a goal, something to strive for. On the other hand, I am a tinkerer and will probably always go in and edit every photo I decide to keep.

 

[Overread]

Getting it right in camera - expose to the right - compositional theories - exposure triangle - inverse square light fall off rate - flash ratios - etc...

 

[zombiesniper]

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.

 

[Gary A.]

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.