Getting Right In the Camera

[MarkBarbieri]

Many eons ago, when I first started shooting, you had no choice but to get it right in the camera. There was no Photoshop. What you shot was what you got. OK, there was some flexibility in how the photo was developed or printed, but it was limited and for only the elite few that did their own developing and printing.

Fast forward to today. Most serious photographers shoot digital and do some post processing. This has lead to some photographers getting lazy when they shoot with the expectation that they'll "fix it" in post production. This, in turn, has lead to others decrying that practice and admonishing people to "get it right" in the camera.

In general, I agree with this advice. You'll have a better picture if you don't have to level your picture or boost your exposure in post production. However, like just about everything in life, the optimum practice is not at the extremes. I think that there are things that can or even should be fixed in post production. What do you think should be left for post production rather than "getting it right" in the camera?

1) HDR shots. When you want to capture a scene with a very wide dynamic range, you have choices. You can use graduated neutral density filters to try to manage the range before you shoot. Alternatively, you can take shots at different exposures and blend them using HDR. In some cases, typically those involving motion, it is best to go the GND route. For static scenes, I think you'll actually get a better picture going the HDR route.

2) Framing. When I shoot action sports, I tend to frame wider than I want my final product. Modern cameras usually have pixels to spare. I find that if I try to get my in-camera framing perfect, I have fewer keepers because of framing errors. If I shoot wide and then crop to the framing I want, I get better results.

3) White Balance. I shoot RAW. Getting the white balance right in camera provides very little benefit. In theory, my histogram will be more accurate with correct white balance. It also saves one minor step in post processing. If I'm going to be shooting a lot with one light source, I'll usually rough set the white balance, but I don't make a big deal of it. I don't get better pictures by handling my white balance in post production, but I don't get worse pictures either.

4) Exposure. OK, I usually do try to get my exposure correct in camera. That usually does make for better pictures. One exception is when I'm shooting a scene with relatively low dynamic range. In that case, I deliberately over-expose. Not so much that I blow out my highlights, but I up the exposure as high as possible without going over that line. In post production, I drop the exposure down. I do this because the camera's sensor picks up more information with less noise that way.

5) Spray and pray. Sometimes, rather than trying to exactly time something, I just bump up the fps and fire off a burst. At 8 frames per second, I'm more likely to get a shot at the perfect time than I would trying to time my shutter click to the exact right moment. This doesn't work with flash and it does waste a lot of space. When trying to catch the perfect moment, I've found that "spraying and praying" actually works better than trying for perfect timing. OK, that's not really a post-production fix, but it is a shift from film (where you pay for every frame) to digital (where mistakes are essentially free).

Disagree with any of these? What other situations is it unimportant to "get it right" in the camera rather than just dealing with it in post production?

 

[zackiedawg]

What do you think should be left for post production rather than "getting it right" in the camera?

1) HDR shots. When you want to capture a scene with a very wide dynamic range, you have choices. You can use graduated neutral density filters to try to manage the range before you shoot. Alternatively, you can take shots at different exposures and blend them using HDR. In some cases, typically those involving motion, it is best to go the GND route. For static scenes, I think you'll actually get a better picture going the HDR route.

2) Framing. When I shoot action sports, I tend to frame wider than I want my final product. Modern cameras usually have pixels to spare. I find that if I try to get my in-camera framing perfect, I have fewer keepers because of framing errors. If I shoot wide and then crop to the framing I want, I get better results.

3) White Balance. I shoot RAW. Getting the white balance right in camera provides very little benefit. In theory, my histogram will be more accurate with correct white balance. It also saves one minor step in post processing. If I'm going to be shooting a lot with one light source, I'll usually rough set the white balance, but I don't make a big deal of it. I don't get better pictures by handling my white balance in post production, but I don't get worse pictures either.

4) Exposure. OK, I usually do try to get my exposure correct in camera. That usually does make for better pictures. One exception is when I'm shooting a scene with relatively low dynamic range. In that case, I deliberately over-expose. Not so much that I blow out my highlights, but I up the exposure as high as possible without going over that line. In post production, I drop the exposure down. I do this because the camera's sensor picks up more information with less noise that way.

5) Spray and pray. Sometimes, rather than trying to exactly time something, I just bump up the fps and fire off a burst. At 8 frames per second, I'm more likely to get a shot at the perfect time than I would trying to time my shutter click to the exact right moment. This doesn't work with flash and it does waste a lot of space. When trying to catch the perfect moment, I've found that "spraying and praying" actually works better than trying for perfect timing. OK, that's not really a post-production fix, but it is a shift from film (where you pay for every frame) to digital (where mistakes are essentially free).

Disagree with any of these? What other situations is it unimportant to "get it right" in the camera rather than just dealing with it in post production?

I'd definitely agree with #1, 2, and 5 for me (though my latest DSLR has built-in HDR mode, so I can actually do those without post processing now!). I personally do like to nail white balance in camera - I use manual white balance a lot to correct in odd lighting. And sometimes I intentionally allow the white balance to be 'incorrect' because it imparts the feel or mood I want in the photo, such as overly cool or warm. Exposure too I do like to work hard to get it in camera best I can. If I fail, post-processing is there to back me up and make some saves, but in general, I'd rather not. For #5, I don't use that technique often, but it certainly helps with stuff like wildlife and birds, which I shoot a lot. #2 I also use often - not huge crops, but slight realigns or off-centering is useful as you mentioned with sports or other fast moving subjects where keeping perfect thirds while tracking focus and panning is a bit of a challenge!

I am the type who supports the concept of doing everything possible to get it right in the camera and have to do no post processing...and I will always try to. But I also have no fear of or dislike of post processing - if it is needed, I'll use it, or if I want to experiment or be artistic every once in a while, I'll really delve into it. In the film days, the concept was the same...try to get it right in camera - however even back then there were ways to process to fix problems - many a photographer has spent time in a dark room pushing, pulling, burning and dodging, and diffusing to get a shot to look a little better than it was actually shot. Post processing for me is just an extension of the darkroom - more capable, easier to use, and far more advanced...but the same concept. Get it right if you can, and if you can't, tweak it to get it right.

The way I see it, you are no less a photographer for using post-processing unless you are shooting blindly and hitting auto-process in the software to try to improve things (and chances are, your photos aren't going to grab any prizes). A good photographer shows even in a bad shot, in the composition, the moment captured, the light or shadow...they may be blown or crushed, or something got in the way, but you know when a photographer has 'the eye'. And even in post-processing, it takes that photographer's eye to manipulate the photo in post to make it really sing - to know how to properly crop it, adjust the levels, properly color balance it, and frame/compose the scene.

 

[C&B Young]

2) Framing. When I shoot action sports, I tend to frame wider than I want my final product. Modern cameras usually have pixels to spare. I find that if I try to get my in-camera framing perfect, I have fewer keepers because of framing errors. If I shoot wide and then crop to the framing I want, I get better results.

I agree with this 100%. I shot a lot of baseball games this summer, and nearly all of my best results came from shooting wide and then cropping to where the action was later. This method has spilled over to other areas now also. Better to get the shot and recompose in post than to miss the shot altogether by trying to frame it in camera!

 

[boBQuincy]

Many eons ago I was one of those who did their own developing and printing. Not one of the elite few but dedicated enough to see that this was the only way to get just what I wanted since I was also not wealthy enough to pay someone that was good enough to do it right. Now, as then, there was no "right" out of the camera, only "best possible" for conditions. The exception was a studio where we had complete control over lighting, or the very rare happy circumstance where the light was just right. IOW, post-processing was just as important then as now, we just didn't have nearly as many tools with which to do it and it sure was a lot more difficult and time-consuming.

It is a rare image that will not benefit from some adjustment; dodging and burning; contrast; saturation... the interaction between light and sensor almost guarantees that some part of our image will not be the way we want it. Usually the best we can do is get part of it "right" and plan on correcting the rest later. But yes, it is good to capture the image as best we can to minimize the amount of post-processing required. The trick is, what is "best" and how do we determine it in the field? The Zone System helps a lot but is not very fast to use and difficult without a real spot meter.

I see little reason not to capture HDR sets for a stationary subject. At least it gives us three exposures from which to choose, at best it gives us a lot of dynamic range. For those who don't like the "HDR look" I have found that many photos are HDR and no one even suspects it. If it is done with a subtle touch it can be undetectable.

Sharpening is best left for post-processing, the camera's sharpening controls are not predictable, destructive, and irreversible. Of course with RAW there is no sharpening (or at least none we can adjust).

Adjusting contrast, saturation, and lightness for prints should be done later. A paper print has a very small dynamic range and the image should be adjusted to match the paper/printer for best results.

I agree with your 5 ideas except I have *only* 3.5 frames per second and sometimes have to estimate the right time to press the shutter button. It ain't easy!

 

[Marlton Mom]

I find it interesting that 3 of the 5 categories have to do with exposure and only 2 with "framing".

For me it's all about "Framing" the shot and letting the camera's auto programing do the rest. I have spent some time playing "beat the camera" and 95% of the time the camera was right unless I wanted some off kilter exposure and the camera couldn't possibly read my mind. I think this is a tribute to all the camera engineers that spent all that time devising equipment that could capture the exposure right in the sweet spot.

All that being said however leads to today's developments with digital photography. With the use of software I finally feel like I am able to take one step closer to being an 'artist' because I can manipulate my image further.... along the lines of the ideas that I have in my head.

To me this is sort of analogous of a cave man going from painting with his fingers to using paintbrushes.

So if it is a question of "What do you think should be left for post production rather than "getting it right" in the camera?" then I think that Framing is essential and all else, post production is the new frontier... The "old school" rules of having everything honky dory from the get go are good fundamentals but only the shooter would know if this is necessary for their goals for the final image.


Now all this being said.... there are some people, like my husband, who for them it's all "Ansel Adams" about the exposure and the lighting. Other people, like me, are more like Weegee (Usher Fellig) and it's composition and framing and exposure is a secondary consideration.

So this great question that you posed has many tentacled tangents of which to pursue!!


Marlton Mom

PS. Can you imagine a day when we will have to deal with HD 3d photography!! YIKES..... the many tentacled tangents on that one is giving me a headache!

 

[jann1033]

i think i most agree with bobq. post processing has always been around and practiced by the lates and greats, they just didn't have computers and software to do it. so was AAdams just lazy? anyone willing to lug a behemoth camera up a mountain like he did doesn't really seem to have that characteristic to me... imo someone who gets their shorts in a bunch about pp is probably just to lazy to learn to "get it right in the computer"lmao: )but also imo it has very little to do with "getting it right in the camera". lately it seems more and more "getting it right " in camera probably just means letting the camera do more for you since some cameras seem to do everything but click the shutter, although i hear a new pentax is coming out with that feature next yr ). ie my photos have been tons sharper since i upgraded my body and lens(es). is that because i woke up with more technique one day or due to my camera having a better focus system?...guessing #2.

"journalistic" style , ie exact representation of the subject of photography just doesn't really excite me. i concentrate more on things i can't change ie, the composition, natural light etc. although i do know some photos i really admire are totally staged, artificially lit etc so where do they fit in, basically doing post processing pre processing?

but my thoughts on mark's op after all that long winded introduction are:

to me photography is more of an art than a science. ie taking a photo of natural elements and "improving" on it so 90% of the time i am going to want to do something to it. i don't use picture styles in camera, shoot in raw, have the white balance set to whatever the conditions are usually but sometimes change that afterward anyway for a different effect( ie the warmth of shade vs cooler daylight). .

i get as accurate representation as i can ie (#4 )exposure cause imo it gives me more room to change it without losing details so i post process after i see the photo and how close i feel it represents what feeling i want it to represent.since i think most histograms are still not based on raw, it's really a "best guess" anyway

don't usually use hdr ( #1) cause way to lazy to carry the tripod and set it up.

i keep my settings on burst due to #5 and the fact i like to shoot animals, which pop up when you least expect them and disappear again so i fire off as many shots as i can and hope for the best when i see one. course that also means due to my heavy shutter finger i might have 6 shots of a stationary object as well ...

#2 it depends on the shot, since i like landscape/nature shots and there seem to be a plethora of telephone lines, guard rails etc in all the wrong places, i might shoot wider to have room get rid of something

so pretty much i shoot in a way to be able to post process evidently

i have to say i have seen some photoshop "geniuses" who just blow me away with the photos they have created. some may say they aren't "photos" in the "pure" sense but to that i say "hogwash" and i hope i can do that when i grow up.

 

[wenrob]

I'm always on the fence about this stuff. I've seen on some forums where the SOOC photo is one I would have tossed but after it has been "worked" just blows me away. The thing is, I'm just too damn lazy to put all that work into burning this, dodging that, duping this, erasing that, smoothing this, selective sharpening that...oy! The results are stunning but I honestly don't know how I feel about it. That's not saying it's wrong, it just isn't right for me. So I endeavor to get it right in camera. However that's my version of right and not others. My preferences and/or style is going to be different that others. I think I am destined to just having nice but average photos.

What I leave for post production:

Like Mark I tend to shoot to the right. What a revelation! The difference in noise reduction is amazing. It's a fine line though because if you go to far even RAW can't save you.

White balance though I still struggle with it.

Color and contrast.

Sharpening, another struggle of mine and I refuse to do web versions so no doubt my photos look crunchy at times but they are pretty good in print.

I'm learning to shoot wide and crop later, it's made a world of difference in my composition.

 

[My2Girls66]

I'd have to agree with what wenrob said.
I like to get it as right in the camera as possible. To my untrained eye anyway. I find I sit at the computer much too long when I 'try' and pp.
Also, I am not good at pp so I tend not to do much of it, just the basics. I do think its a great tool as long as its not over done.
I have all my photos on a laptop and depending on what angle you look at the screen the photos looks different! I can't tell where its 'correct' at least to my eye. I do crop photos, get rid of redeye and blemishes. I have recently tried using the cloning tool-pretty cool. As far as white balance, contrast, sharpening levels etc....I don't know enough to mess with them much, tho I did take a bunch of RAW photos and went into Nikon View and changed the white balance just to see what the different settings looked like. I will occasionally try the 'auto correct' 'auto levels' buttons just to see the difference. I just downloaded a noiseware program so I will mess with that a little on some cheer photos I took at ISO 1600 on my D80. I think I tend not to over analyze my(or anyones) photos so I don't 'notice' what would be 'incorrect' to some people's eye. I love the look of HDR as long as its subtle- tho I've never tried it myself. I don't like the over processed look in photos- I prefer a more natural look.

 

[Groucho]

I'm old-fashioned; I like to get as much right ahead of time.

1. Sorry folks - we can still tell when it's an HDR shot. Even subtle ones still tend to be pretty obvious. Maybe it's obvious to me because I have a good idea of what DR to expect from a digital photo and when I see much more than that, it is plain to see, but I'm pretty sure I can tell.

2. Framing - I often do some cropping but usually not dramatic. Some of this is just due to decades of focusing using the microprism in my K1000 then recomposing (to say nothing of my manual focusing now), so I tend to put the most important thing in the middle and if it's moving, I tend to shoot with it in the middle, leaving me with people photos with heads near the middle and lots of dear air over the top. I try to use the select-your-own AF point more often now to alleviate this but most of the time, that AF point is stuck in the middle.

3. White balance - don't care, current camera is accurate virtually all the time and when it ain't or I want a different look, it's easy enough to change later

4. Exposure - gotta get this right (or darn close) in-camera, even with Raw, for best results. Generally, I prefer to underexpose than overexpose for multiple reasons. (The big ones being that I hate to blow out a channel and boosting an underexposed photo can make the colors really "pop".) Best solution for wrong exposure is to switch metering mode but EC is probably more common.

5. I really don't like "spray and pray" - whenever I hear someone doing this, I always think back to the last time I played paintball. (Bear with me.) Way back when I played with anything approaching regularity, nobody used semi or full auto paintball guns. I bought a really nice Tippmann pump-action and had a great time with it. You had to stop and think about your shots. After not playing for several years, we went out and I brought my old gun. All the regulars were playing with automatic guns and many would just blindly stick the gun out and spray your area with paintballs with little to no aiming. It made it very difficult to be competitive with my old gun, and not much fun - I'd rather go through the mechanical action of pumping it and aiming even if it meant less success. The point is, I'm an old-fashioned guy. I like old steam-powered cars, old giant IBM clicky keyboards, and old metal manual-focus prime lenses. If I just shoot blindly and hope for the best, I'd feel like I was cheating - even if it means that I miss the shot. This is my own opinion and I don't expect anyone to agree with it, but there it is.

Ultimately - I'd guess the main thing I totally ignore during shooting is white balance - everything else I try to get as close as possible out of the camera. Considering that I still shoot film, too (got ten rolls of 110 on their way to me now ), I can't depend on post-processing for everything!