|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Feb 21, 2023 16:58:10 GMT
Otherwise I always try to 'get it right in the camera', probably as a result of learning when using Kodachrome. That'll do it, every time!  |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Feb 21, 2023 17:09:48 GMT
My brain is always half on art when I take a photo. Therefore photoshop (or, as I use, Elements) is my destination for a shot which fits the bill. I might use two or three shots to get the result I want.
So getting it right in camera, is true up to a point, but I usually have the finished product at the back of my mind when I do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Feb 21, 2023 17:22:36 GMT
My brain is always half on art when I take a photo. Therefore photoshop (or, as I use, Elements) is my destination for a shot which fits the bill. I might use two or three shots to get the result I want. So getting it right in camera, is true up to a point, but I usually have the finished product at the back of my mind when I do it. Thanks for sharing that, Kate, as a perpetual sufferer from art failure, I find that very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by dans on Feb 21, 2023 19:07:06 GMT
I always try to get it right in camera, but as my first attempt at large format shows I am quite capable of completely messing up a shot after the camera too! "Adding a bit of tooth" I've not heard that before, I like it though |
|
|
|
Post by peterba on Feb 21, 2023 20:15:06 GMT
"Adding a bit of tooth" I've not heard that before, I like it though That's my convenient shorthand for roughing-up 'too-perfect' images, the better to suit my taste, Dan.
I recall a side-discussion about this subject that we had on an AP thread, in which I probably commented something along the lines of "perfection isn't perfect" . Apologies if I'm repeating myself, but that's still my view!  
|
|
|
|
Post by dans on Feb 21, 2023 22:33:33 GMT
"Adding a bit of tooth" I've not heard that before, I like it though That's my convenient shorthand for roughing-up 'too-perfect' images, the better to suit my taste, Dan.
I recall a side-discussion about this subject that we had on an AP thread, in which I probably commented something along the lines of "perfection isn't perfect" . Apologies if I'm repeating myself, but that's still my view!
I agree Peter, I tend to care less and less about sharpness these days and much more about the essence of the image. |
|
|
|
Post by terrywoodenpic on Feb 22, 2023 9:30:35 GMT
First, I shoot raw, so GIRIC is a rather different concept to a SOOC jpeg.
I can work to either, but in reality rarely shoot jpegs.
With raw shooting my aim is to capture the widest essential tonal range possible between highlights and shadows. This will almost always need adjusting in PP, or even night scenes will tend to look like daylight.
I leave the colour balance on auto as this is a factor that is fully adjustable without loss when raw shooting.
In processing I will adjust burning dodging and adjusting over all and local exposure and contrast in the same way that I would have done in wet printing. I will correct verticals and do minor crops as necessary.
I am aware of all these aspects when shooting, and allow for them when setting exposure, adjusting lighting, choosing viewpoint and framing and focussing the image.
I do not allow the camera to adjust the ISO setting for me, or make other settings that will affect noise and quality.
Any adjustments that I make in PP take far less time and effort than making a wet print. So I consider them time well spent, And as always an essential part of photography.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Feb 24, 2023 10:39:17 GMT
There are situations where getting it right in camera does not produce the best result. I am thinking about exposing to the right. This causes the initial picture to look over exposed but allows shadows to be displayed with reduced noise.
Nikon does this slightly raised exposure and modified jpeg processing automatically with what they call Active D-Lighting. I expect other manufacturers have something similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Feb 24, 2023 14:24:13 GMT
There are situations where getting it right in camera does not produce the best result. I am thinking about exposing to the right. This causes the initial picture to look over exposed but allows shadows to be displayed with reduced noise. Nikon does this slightly raised exposure and modified jpeg processing automatically with what they call Active D-Lighting. I expect other manufacturers have something similar. That is interesting for a Canon and Leica user who tends to go 1/3 to 2/3 underexposed to protect the highlights, I generally find the shadows have enough detail. I suppose it shows differences between the various manufactures and how over time you adapt to get the best from what ever system you use. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Feb 24, 2023 15:09:29 GMT
Not the slightest chance of getting this one right in camera, in the time available. Definitely would have been in the "one that got away category" Strongly back-lit - hard to even see it with the naked eye (400 mm lens and x1.5 crop camera) - lucky it was reasonably thick grey cloud to kill the sunlight. Added +2/3 stop for the taking - increased to +1.5 stop in post, shadow boost, clarity, vibrance and saturation.  DSCF1528-2.jpg by Pete, on Flickr at least I found that I can now stand still and point a camera in the air while looking through it and not fall over! Walked a mile, Ok - it took me an hour) A bit of a crop  DSCF1528.jpg by Pete, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by squeamishossifrage on Feb 24, 2023 15:31:13 GMT
There are situations where getting it right in camera does not produce the best result. I am thinking about exposing to the right. This causes the initial picture to look over exposed but allows shadows to be displayed with reduced noise. Nikon does this slightly raised exposure and modified jpeg processing automatically with what they call Active D-Lighting. I expect other manufacturers have something similar. I agree, but to me 'getting it right in camera' is, in fact, making sure I have an exposure that is the closest match to the dynamic range of the sensor, which is why I always carry a spot meter with me. Also, GIRIC, for me, includes deciding the balance between highlights and shadows when the DR of the sensor is insufficient for the scene - burn out the highlights or block the shadows? |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Feb 24, 2023 15:52:53 GMT
There are situations where getting it right in camera does not produce the best result. I am thinking about exposing to the right. This causes the initial picture to look over exposed but allows shadows to be displayed with reduced noise. Nikon does this slightly raised exposure and modified jpeg processing automatically with what they call Active D-Lighting. I expect other manufacturers have something similar. I agree, but to me 'getting it right in camera' is, in fact, making sure I have an exposure that is the closest match to the dynamic range of the sensor, which is why I always carry a spot meter with me. Also, GIRIC, for me, includes deciding the balance between highlights and shadows when the DR of the sensor is insufficient for the scene - burn out the highlights or unblock the shadows? The DPReview forums answer is buy a new camera with better DR, then moan about the lenses being 0.00001% out of focus at a distance you don't shoot at anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by terrywoodenpic on Feb 24, 2023 15:55:36 GMT
There are situations where getting it right in camera does not produce the best result. I am thinking about exposing to the right. This causes the initial picture to look over exposed but allows shadows to be displayed with reduced noise. Nikon does this slightly raised exposure and modified jpeg processing automatically with what they call Active D-Lighting. I expect other manufacturers have something similar. That is interesting for a Canon and Leica user who tends to go 1/3 to 2/3 underexposed to protect the highlights, I generally find the shadows have enough detail. I suppose it shows differences between the various manufactures and how over time you adapt to get the best from what ever system you use. That is of course getting it right in camera. Which is far different to getting a finished image out of a camera. Getting it right in camera does not exclude PP. but allows for it as an integral part of the process. For the best possible image. |
|
|
|
Post by terrywoodenpic on Feb 25, 2023 9:13:35 GMT
At some point in the not too distant future sensors and processors will be able to cope with a reflected DR spanning full sunlight to a few photons.
At that point, we will be able to forget about exposure settings and select almost what ever shutter speed and aperture we want.
However at the lowest photon density, noise will always be an unavoidable quantum level problem.
The limiting factor at that time will still be the lack of an ability to adequately display the resulting wide DR image, which will continue to be a question of choosing between options.
We are already in the position where sensors can capture a wider DR than can be displayed. Which is why we struggle with the concept of getting it right in camera.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Feb 25, 2023 9:35:19 GMT
I agree, but to me 'getting it right in camera' is, in fact, making sure I have an exposure that is the closest match to the dynamic range of the sensor, which is why I always carry a spot meter with me. Also, GIRIC, for me, includes deciding the balance between highlights and shadows when the DR of the sensor is insufficient for the scene - burn out the highlights or unblock the shadows? The DPReview forums answer is buy a new camera with better DR, then moan about the lenses being 0.00001% out of focus at a distance you don't shoot at anyway. I really enjoy DPR forums for many things, but there is a mindset amongst many there that unless your camera has the absolute greatest amount of DR possible, you simply can't take a photo with it. Some of them seem to be constantly swapping between systems, dropping tens of thousands each time. I don't get it. |
|
