Opinions wanted

4labs

Just as we have debated the merits of Canon vs Nikon I would love everyone's opinion on Getting exposure right the first time vs not giving a darn because you can fix all your mistakes in post. My opinion is that I would rather get things right before I take the photograph than to have to spend alot of time fixing it afterwards. I just don't have the patience and quite frankly don't enjoy the processing as much as taking the photograph.

I remember when I got my first trading job on wallstreet, computers were first starting to become mainstream on the trading desks but the old timers resisted heavily. The feeling was that computers made the traders lazy. When they had to do everything by hand and remember the numbers they stayed sharp. In the end it wasn't practical and computers took over but I will say that there were better traders in the early 80's than there are today.

I would think that it is a similiar with photography. To really understand the camera and photography it would make sense to me to try and get the photo as perfect as possible without having to do alot on post.

I am sure there are many opinions on this so let me hear them...

Shay Stephens

The better you can expose in camera the better qality image you will have. You can edit a good exposure (within reason) but you will compromise on image quality the more you have to stretch or compress the histogram.

The other benefit to having a correct out of the camera exposure is as you mentioned, being able to speed up the time needed to make the image usable.

And then there is the confidence in knowing you have good handle on the equipment. That peace of mind allows you to spend more mental power on creative efforts.


Can you get by without, yes, but you will go farther with

pathfinder

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why not get the best exposure, focus, composition, etc at the time of exposure, AND the best post processing afterward??

Do you really think the little algorithm built into your DSLR is better at making a jpg than you can be??? Naaaahhhh!!!

rutt

I agree with Pathfinder. And I don't think we disagree that much with Shay, not really. Sometimes you just can't expose the whole scene properly at shoot time. Snow scenes are a good example. If you expose properly for the subjects, you are likely to underexpose or overexpose the snow and then you either it will look gray or be overexposed. Gray now can be fixed in post. Overexposed snow will never show detail.

When Shay's book is published or when he sells a shot to Vogue, some guy like Edgework will be do the prepress work. If that doesn't happen, Shay will be disappointed in the results. If it does happen, Shay will think how great his shot looks and be happy he got it all right at shoot time.

But, of cousrse, Shay know that. He just wants to get as much right as possible when he shoots. This is good craftmanship and the results show in Shay's great shots.

1ibandit

pathfinder wrote:

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why not get the best exposure, focus, composition, etc at the time of exposure, AND the best post processing afterward??

Do you really think the little algorithm built into your DSLR is better at making a jpg than you can be??? Naaaahhhh!!!

I think what is said here should end this thread. Yes do the best you can, and ask questions to get the results you want. If you want it better edit!

I have seen some pictures on dgrin I thought were just OK, but after someone did the magic to it... I thought it was one of the best pictures I have seen..

As for me I don't have time to do the work, so I do the best I can. At my kids basketball/baseball games I save as jpg, and get the most shots I can (average 300 per game).

If I go hunting for that great shot I change to RAW so I can TRY to make it better. I also keep the camera in RAW mode just in case.

bfjr

In camera right the 1st time is my creedo!!

I shot raw always.

DirtyRat

Digital has magic
I've been drinking, so bear with me. Anyone serious, shoots at their best, they think. With digital you can "work" on your shot. Film has many limitations. Many times I've saved shots from the trash to sell just because they were digital. It would be nice if we all were perfect!

eye-max

When I first got a digital & PS I didn't sweat to much over the exposure thinking I could fix it in PS. But the image loses a lot when you try to save an under exposed shot, an overexposed shot can't be rescued.
Now, when I take a shot, my intention is to make it the best exposure I've ever taken. I shoot raw & I try to make my in-camera meter happy, then I adjust the exposure settings to get the effect I want, contrasty, or high key, etc.

maddernc

The better you get it in camera the more you have to work with in post

Cain

Andy

This is a great thread, Eric.

I know many types of photographers.

Those who came from P&S and think that their DSLR shots are "soft, flat, drab..etc.. They just need to learn how to set their in-camera parms to produce results that are good to go from the camera - and guess what folks - it's possible to do that! The next step, is to learn your techniques well enough in the areas of metering and exposure, and the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture, to "nail it in the camera." For these folks, photoshop is a chore, they want to shoot and be done. Nothing wrong with this and I applaud the photographer that takes the time to understand his/her gear, and learn some basics of exposure, to make this all happen.

Then there are other folks, who want to "do it all themselves." I'm one of those guys, except when I'm not. A good example of when I'm not one of those guys is when I shoot an event. For an event, I want to nail it in the camera, so that I have to do as little as possible after shooting. Speed - from camera to computer to SmugMug to client - is paramount. I know some really good event pros who do this. But they ALSO have custom-built photoshop actions, that they run on their images, to apply: minor exposure adjustments (based on lighting, let's say); white balance adjustments; tone curve adjustments; sharpening; resizing; proof marks, more... But - the one thing they do is get as close to the right expsoure AT SHOOT. They rely on photoshop to save a botched job sure - but with experience, these are far and few between. When I am one of those guys that likes to "do everything" himself - is when I'm shooting landscape or street or portraits. I'll work from RAW files and develop my images. And I thoroughly enjoy it. That doesn't mean that I'm not careful at shoot - no no no, I'm just more comfortable making the final decisions on the images myself, versus allowing Canon to do it for me.

RAW, RAW+JPG, JPG Only - it's all good. Learn your gear, learn your techniques and enjoy photography - and enjoy post-processing, too - if that floats your boat

Great thread.

4labs

Thnxs Andy,
Your response was exactly what I was looking for. I was surprised at how many times I have read/heard "just shoot raw and you could fix it later" and it just got me wondering that raw could sure make some folks lazy. When I first got the D2x I used someone elses custom settings and wasn't happy at all with my photographs. I knew I wasn't as bad as my photos seemed and I realized that the person used settings that left him with no choice but to spend alot of time in post to get them the way he wanted. It took me awhile but I got things the way I want in camera and have cut my post time dramatically. There is certainly no harm in learning PS as or Capture or whatever post tools you use but I want to learn my camera inside out first.


Thnxs for everyone's comments.