The mantra "Get it right in camera"

[squeamishossifrage]

Now we have an awesome set of post-production tools available to us, how important is it to "get it right in camera"? Exposure can be tweaked afterwards, sharpening can help hide poor focus, the tone curve can fix any lighting oddities, and so on.

For myself, although I went digital over a dozen years ago, I haven't changed my photography all that much since the days of film - I try to get as much right in camera as possible, particularly framing - I hate to crop! I don't worry about spot-on exposure too much, with the exception that I invariably meter the highlights and shadows to get the best exposure range to suit the dynamic range of the sensor, and that I often do tweak in post. As far as colour/tint/tonality, whatever was in front of me at the time is what motivated me to push the button, so it stays!

I do very little in post (and it probably shows  ), but my hobby is photography, and I do not enjoy spending lots of time fiddling with an image to improve it - it is what it is - whatever I took at the time!

Others may feel that with digital, the in-camera bit is only half the story, as we have all these tools available to create something more artistic, a point of view I understand, but do not embrace. It would be interesting to hear other points of view here.

[MJB]

I try to get things as close to the finished article in camera. I don't want to spend hours polishing a turd in Ye Olde Photoshoppe.

[nickr]

I've never seen this as a digital v film thing, because you always could do an enormous amount in the darkroom - Ansel Adams used to say that "the negative is the score, the print is the performance". But then I mostly used slide film, which was both. And so I learned to get as much right in camera as possible, using filters and fill-in flash, for example. And in the digital world - well, much the same. But then as before, sometimes I enjoy a fiddle around in the darkroom or in the lightroom.

And then there's the Holgas, Diana, all the Lomoesque stuff. That's all about getting it wrong in camera...

[geoffr]

Anyone who shot slide film will have that ingrained in their photography. You can't remove it because it was that important but it does mean that there is less processing required when back at home. I consider it a good discipline even if it isn't the absolute necessity it was previously.

[peterob]

Jan 24, 2023 16:32:30 GMT squeamishossifrage said:

Now we have an awesome set of post-production tools available to us, how important is it to "get it right in camera"? Exposure can be tweaked afterwards, sharpening can help hide poor focus, the tone curve can fix any lighting oddities, and so on.

For myself, although I went digital over a dozen years ago, I haven't changed my photography all that much since the days of film - I try to get as much right in camera as possible, particularly framing - I hate to crop! I don't worry about spot-on exposure too much, with the exception that I invariably meter the highlights and shadows to get the best exposure range to suit the dynamic range of the sensor, and that I often do tweak in post. As far as colour/tint/tonality, whatever was in front of me at the time is what motivated me to push the button, so it stays!

I do very little in post (and it probably shows  ), but my hobby is photography, and I do not enjoy spending lots of time fiddling with an image to improve it - it is what it is - whatever I took at the time!

Others may feel that with digital, the in-camera bit is only half the story, as we have all these tools available to create something more artistic, a point of view I understand, but do not embrace. It would be interesting to hear other points of view here.

I always post-process because I just keep the raw files and if anything I leave a bit of room for correcting the angle (I tend to be a bit squint on the horizon) but I don't intend to heavily process any image, it should be 90% of what I intended to take, the rest is polish mainly deciding the colour profile and contrast/sharpening.  

[zx9]

Jan 24, 2023 17:18:21 GMT nickr said:

I've never seen this as a digital v film thing, because you always could do an enormous amount in the darkroom - Ansel Adams used to say that "the negative is the score, the print is the performance". But then I mostly used slide film, which was both. And so I learned to get as much right in camera as possible, using filters and fill-in flash, for example. And in the digital world - well, much the same. But then as before, sometimes I enjoy a fiddle around in the darkroom or in the lightroom.

And then there's the Holgas, Diana, all the Lomoesque stuff. That's all about getting it wrong in camera...

I have never been one for using filters ( except for contrast with B&W) or fill in flash but other than that I agree with all Nick said above.

Photoshop is an extension of what I could do in the darkroom and I will play with contrast, dodge & burn, re frame in the same way with both digital images and scans of B&W negatives.

[petrochemist]

When I post process it's usually to clone out dust spots & resize to a more appropriate size for the internet.
Even when shooting infra red I hardly ever use RAW, & never photoshop.

No plans to try a Holga or Diane, but I'll play with odd lenses & other extras all day, so can still get it wrong in camera, and sometimes appreciate the results. Ideally I'll spot a failing in a lens & find a subject to make the most of that, but I have to honest & admit that's rarely the case.

[zou]

Most important "in camera" decisions are focus, exposure (don't lose detail at whichever or both ends that matter), and overall framing. Framing not meaning crop though. You cannot PP focus, recover detail that wasn't recorded, or expand the scene in post. So yes, I do try to get it as right as possible. But folk who cherish SOOC as a mantra, or who think cropping is wrong, frankly need to take their weird little cult and shove it where the sun don't shine.

[geoffr]

Jan 24, 2023 21:52:54 GMT zou said:

Most important "in camera" decisions are focus, exposure (don't lose detail at whichever or both ends that matter), and overall framing. Framing not meaning crop though. You cannot PP focus, recover detail that wasn't recorded, or expand the scene in post. So yes, I do try to get it as right as possible. But folk who cherish SOOC as a mantra, or who think cropping is wrong, frankly need to take their weird little cult and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Nothing wrong with cropping but you still need to get focus and exposure right. As you say you can’t recreate detail that isn’t there.

[nickr]

Jan 24, 2023 21:52:54 GMT zou said:

Most important "in camera" decisions are focus, exposure (don't lose detail at whichever or both ends that matter), and overall framing. Framing not meaning crop though. You cannot PP focus, recover detail that wasn't recorded, or expand the scene in post. So yes, I do try to get it as right as possible. But folk who cherish SOOC as a mantra, or who think cropping is wrong, frankly need to take their weird little cult and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Whilst not disagreeing with you, one of the things I love about photography is that there really aren't any hard and fast rules - if they want to set themselves that challenge, that's fine. Of course if they're going to be sanctimonious about it, then yes, start shoving.

[squeamishossifrage]

Jan 24, 2023 21:52:54 GMT zou said:

But folk who cherish SOOC as a mantra, or who think cropping is wrong, frankly need to take their weird little cult and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I tried, but the sun just gets everywhere in Cyprus. 

I do crop, but I don't like doing it. My first career was in the military, and my second in the IT industry, and in both cases throwing away information was an anathema, and cropping is throwing away information!

On a more prosaic level, 24mp FF at 300 dpi fits perfectly onto an A3+ full-bleed print, which matches my large printer, a large stack of different A3+ photo-papers, and drawerful of A2 frames to take the prints. Practical chap, me! 

Incidentally, I see a big difference between GIRIC and SOOC. GIRIC covers those things that should be done in camera, but does not rule out further adjustment, but SOOC implies that that is the finished article, as in the days of slide film.

[geoffr]

Jan 25, 2023 8:02:01 GMT squeamishossifrage said:

Jan 24, 2023 21:52:54 GMT zou said:

But folk who cherish SOOC as a mantra, or who think cropping is wrong, frankly need to take their weird little cult and shove it where the sun don't shine.

I tried, but the sun just gets everywhere in Cyprus. 

I do crop, but I don't like doing it. My first career was in the military, and my second in the IT industry, and in both cases throwing away information was an anathema, and cropping is throwing away information!

On a more prosaic level, 24mp FF at 300 dpi fits perfectly onto an A3+ full-bleed print, which matches my large printer, a large stack of different A3+ photo-papers, and drawerful of A2 frames to take the prints. Practical chap, me! 

Incidentally, I see a big difference between GIRIC and SOOC. GIRIC covers those things that should be done in camera, but does not rule out further adjustment, but SOOC implies that that is the finished article, as in the days of slide film.

Interesting view. Cropping isn't "throwing away data", it is selective use of data to show a specific subject. In the IT world, you might use all the data to see that there was a problem but select sections from that data to determine when and where it occurred.

[squeamishossifrage]

Jan 25, 2023 8:47:21 GMT geoffr said:

Interesting view. Cropping isn't "throwing away data", it is selective use of data to show a specific subject. In the IT world, you might use all the data to see that there was a problem but select sections from that data to determine when and where it occurred.

Ha! There speaks a man who has never seen what happens to a subaltern who fails to deliver a complete intelligence report to a dyspeptic major! 

Regarding your IT parallel, you still need all the good data to demonstrate the anomaly in the bad data.

[nickr]

I'm ambivalent about cropping. Doubly so, perhaps. I don't like throwing data away either, but on the other hand, sometimes there's not really any choice, and further, sometimes I don't want to present the result in the format of the sensor (or film frame, for that matter!), and here I've no issues with doing it whatsoever. So I'll crop whenever I have to or want to, but still feel a bit uneasy about it

[Kath]

I'm instantly suspicious of anyone who declares there's only one right way to do a thing and it's their way. If someone only ever wants their shots to be SOOC, then fine, let them get on with it but don't tell me I have to follow their example. For a start, I like mucking about in photoshop, and it strikes me as a bit like saying I only like my cake straight out of the oven and never ever decorate them. Great. But some cakes are better with a bit of icing.

I am apparently totally incapable of shooting straight so I usually frame to allow for a bit of correction. I also have the worst 24-105 f/4 L series lens that Canon ever shipped and almost always feel the need to correct for CA and distortion. A lot of my product photography needs to be shot from angles to show off the product which sometimes means the backdrop is not then parallel to the sensor and I personally hate seeing what should be straight edges veering off at an angle so I correct those where necessary too. And because these days product photos tend to end up in look books and catalogues and on social media I frame to edit so that there can be a square crop as well as a rectangular one still showing off the main items.

I try to get focus, exposure, framing and white balance all sorted in camera but again, there may still be some colour correction required for example. And sometimes I like to just mess about and see what happens!