The Capture vs The Processing

[IanD]

Something I've been thinking about for a while, and noticing a few comments on some recent threads, has made me inquisitive......

So, I have been photographing for many years now. It's a hobby and will likely always be so. I don't see myself as particularly good at it but I like to think I can see something I like, each time I'm out with my camera, that gives me a file to work on (bear with me here)

I love photography BUT I also like post processing. I enjoy creating an image from my raw file that pleases my eye and hopefully others too. This is all part of the marriage between the captured image and the finished image.

So, to all that wish to comment, how do you feel about the gap between image capture and finished image - are you totally in the camp of getting a great image in the field and 'tidy in post processing, or are you more in the 'post processing is king' camp.

I don't think I'm great with a camera and so I rely on my post processing skills. They save me so many times when I feel I may have initially failed... and I don't feel guilty for it either. I like the fact that editing software can create wondrous work.

What's your thoughts folks - is it all about getting something right in camera? Are you pro or anti post processing? Is there guilt every time you move that slider?

Thanks for looking

 

[Kodiak Qc]

how do you feel about the gap between image capture and finished image

… gap? Really? There is not gap but a chain of good decisions.

Once sitting at any software, the raw material is what was captu-
red in order to be inspired to any artistic intent. That raw material
is the data captured in RAW file that you want as rich as possible
in every aspect of the recording.

There is not gap but a chain of good decisions.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

Anyone who is "against" post-processing doesn't understand digital photography. In the days of film we got a negative which we then developed after first choosing the film we would shoot on to create the effect we were looking for. Now we have a RAW file, which is a digital negative, that needs developing in the same way but using software instead of chemicals.

There is a big difference, however, between developing a digital negative and manipulating an image in order to correct a mistake or create something that was not initially intended. Poor photographers will inevitably spend a lot of their time doing the latter. The better you become at taking photographs the more you'll find yourself doing the former. We will all, at some point, manipulate an image to become something different than we originally intended but generally speaking I want my RAW files to as close as possible reflect my initial intention. If they don't I have no control over my camera so my results will be hit and miss at best.

 

[Box Brownie]

In general, to use the expression, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

However, one might counter that generalism by saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

My take on this is that I like to make sure I have a file worthy of processing by the KISS principal.............yes on rare occasions I have moved my own goalposts to raise an artistic intent.

But IMO any processing unless with artistic (beyond something that still looks like a photographic image) intent should produce a final image that is still "natural"........the amount and level of the PP'ing needs to be (almost) invisible. Never overcook it, like good food you can easily spoil it if you go too far.

 

[IanD]

… gap? Really? There is not gap but a chain of good decisions

I guess I didn't word that quite right but I do like your analogy Kodiak - I guess i'm interested in peoples thoughts on the beautifully captured original image vs the finished and edited image. Do you and others believe in the capture, or the edited image, or actually the marriage between the two.

There is a big difference, however, between developing a digital negative and manipulating an image in order to correct a mistake or create something that was not initially intended. Poor photographers will inevitably spend a lot of their time doing the latter. .

And that's a point that I was also leaning towards - is post processing beyond the originally viewed image in the field (i.e.... manipulating an image), not the done thing? Acceptable?

Just interested in gauging others opinions - i'm not saying it would ever change my views, but interested? As an example, if you happen to swing by my 365/52 challenge and look at my latest image for the 'age' theme, it's blatantly obvious that the sky has been manipulated, but i've done that because I personally wanted to create a more dramatic affect to go with the old tree. I think works, but others may think i've created something that doesn't sit right in some folks' eyes

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

I guess I didn't word that quite right but I do like your analogy Kodiak - I guess i'm interested in peoples thoughts on the beautifully captured original image vs the finished and edited image. Do you and others believe in the capture, or the edited image, or actually the marriage between the two.



And that's a point that I was also leaning towards - is post processing beyond the originally viewed image in the field (i.e.... manipulating an image), not the done thing? Acceptable?

Just interested in gauging others opinions - i'm not saying it would ever change my views, but interested? As an example, if you happen to swing by my 365/52 challenge and look at my latest image for the 'age' theme, it's blatantly obvious that the sky has been manipulated, but i've done that because I personally wanted to create a more dramatic affect to go with the old tree. I think works, but others may think i've created something that doesn't sit right in some folks' eyes

Ahh.. now I see what you mean. In that case "sod what others think". You're the "artist", your mind creates the idea and you do the rest. If you like the result then you've gotten to where you wanted to go. Some will love it, others will hate it, but that's art.

 

[ancient_mariner]

To me, the camera is flawed because it cannot see and reproduce what I see, so I use the images produced as a starting point, rather than a finishing point. I may also deliberately spoil some aspects of an image if viewed SOOC (for example underexposing to save highlights) with the intention of balancing the image back up in post. This isn't so different from the days of film photography, where a negative was generally just a starting point, and ability in the darkroom (either the photographer or a paid printer) was a requirement to get the best from an image.

 

[Pound Coin]

One of (what I think is) my best film images is of some piglets in a pen with mum. I've long since lost the negative, but if I take the print out of the frame and turn it over there are instructions for printing it from the negative. About 5 different areas for dodging and burning, along with the timings.

I knew what image I wanted when I took it and it needed help in the darkroom. Sometimes I take images that are effortless in processing and sometimes I work on them to better convey what I saw. Digital makes it easer.

 

[GTG]

I think there is a big difference between someone who does a 5 minute edit in LR and someone who goes to extreme lengths buying extremely expensive computers and software. Then buying extra plug-ins at great expense. Making a lengthy and complex edit out of each photo.

It is up to them but my opinion is some people take it too far,
but if it is their job then that is a different story.

 

[Phil V]

Just interested in gauging others opinions - i'm not saying it would ever change my views, but interested? As an example, if you happen to swing by my 365/52 challenge and look at my latest image for the 'age' theme, it's blatantly obvious that the sky has been manipulated, but i've done that because I personally wanted to create a more dramatic affect to go with the old tree. I think works, but others may think i've created something that doesn't sit right in some folks' eyes

My personal view is that there is a lot of overprocessing done by photographers who have either not got the skills to make something look ‘right’ or that don’t care about something being ‘right’.

I personally think the sky in that image is a dogs dinner, I’m not against ‘adding drama’, but there’s more to creating a dramatic image than a bit of unsubtle vignette.

Of course as above the answer is ‘do whatever you like’ but if your aim is to create stunning photos, then you need to build the skills, both in camera and in processing to achieve that. And the ‘if you like it, does it matter what others think’ is of limited helpfulness; if you want to improve, then listening to critique is essential.

And back to the original question, whether a great image is straight out of the camera or a complete work of digital art loosely based on a photograph is pretty irrelevant. Whether it looks ‘right’ though does matter though.

And photographers who confuse ‘I like that’ with ‘that’s good’ are muddying the waters for themselves and others.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

My personal view is that there is a lot of overprocessing done by photographers who have either not got the skills to make something look ‘right’ or that don’t care about something being ‘right’.

I personally think the sky in that image is a dogs dinner, I’m not against ‘adding drama’, but there’s more to creating a dramatic image than a bit of unsubtle vignette.

Of course as above the answer is ‘do whatever you like’ but if your aim is to create stunning photos, then you need to build the skills, both in camera and in processing to achieve that. And the ‘if you like it, does it matter what others think’ is of limited helpfulness; if you want to improve, then listening to critique is essential.

And back to the original question, whether a great image is straight out of the camera or a complete work of digital art loosely based on a photograph is pretty irrelevant. Whether it looks ‘right’ though does matter though.

And photographers who confuse ‘I like that’ with ‘that’s good’ are muddying the waters for themselves and others.

Dunno Phil. I suspect the artistic community said something similar to Picasso. "Good" is subjective. "Technically good" is one thing but if an artist achieves his goal with an image, whether you like it or believe it to be "good" is really neither here nor there. Now.. if you want to sell your images then "good" in the eyes of your target market is important but not if your images are purely for your own personal pleasure.

 

[Phil V]

Dunno Phil. I suspect the artistic community said something similar to Picasso. "Good" is subjective. "Technically good" is one thing but if an artist achieves his goal with an image, whether you like it or believe it to be "good" is really neither here nor there. Now.. if you want to sell your images then "good" in the eyes of your target market is important but not if your images are purely for your own personal pleasure.

Either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misunderstood my post completely.
Good is subjective to the point of irrelevant, and it’s not a word I used.

I’ve a half written post running round my head about ‘visual literacy’ driven by the number of images I see on the internet that have been processed to the point they have lost all credibility.

 

[IanD]

In general, to use the expression, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. However, one might counter that generalism by saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

But IMO any processing unless with artistic (beyond something that still looks like a photographic image) intent should produce a final image that is still "natural"..

Now maybe the not capturing the correct image at the time, is the reason i create some OTT processed images. Maybe it's psychological that some images I over=process, I see as pleasing, at least to my eyes. Or do I actually like them anyway. Who knows

Ahh.. now I see what you mean. In that case "sod what others think". You're the "artist", your mind creates the idea and you do the rest. If you like the result then you've gotten to where you wanted to go. Some will love it, others will hate it, but that's art.

I do like my end results. I hope others do too, but I don't necessarily seek praise from others - it's nice to get constructive feedback of any sort, although positive is always better

To me, the camera is flawed because it cannot see and reproduce what I see, so I use the images produced as a starting point, rather than a finishing point. I may also deliberately spoil some aspects of an image if viewed SOOC (for example underexposing to save highlights) with the intention of balancing the image back up in post. This isn't so different from the days of film photography, where a negative was generally just a starting point, and ability in the darkroom (either the photographer or a paid printer) was a requirement to get the best from an image.

I was never really interested in photography as a youngster. My dad was heavily into it and he had a room converted into a dark room. I never understood what he did in there and only saw the finished photos. Now, in later life I understand the process a little and I think that there was so much to marvel at, of photographers taking the image in the first place (no playback on screens) and then developing, to create some amazing images and effects. I think they were the true artists IMHO

One of (what I think is) my best film images is of some piglets in a pen with mum. I've long since lost the negative, but if I take the print out of the frame and turn it over there are instructions for printing it from the negative. About 5 different areas for dodging and burning, along with the timings. I knew what image I wanted when I took it and it needed help in the darkroom. .

See my reply to ancient mariner. A true art form was dark room processing. I didn't even know you could dodge and burn back in the olden days before photoshop

I think there is a big difference between someone who does a 5 minute edit in LR and someone who goes to extreme lengths buying extremely expensive computers and software. Then buying extra plug-ins at great expense. Making a lengthy and complex edit out of each photo..

Personally, I love the creative side. I can watch youtube for hours, with someone showing me how to cut this out, paste that there, change the background, foreground etc etc. I think for this thread, that's beyond my reasoning on what's a good and bad workflow for processing, but for creativeness and for digital art's sake, I give them a huge thumbs up

My personal view is that there is a lot of overprocessing done by photographers who have either not got the skills to make something look ‘right’ or that don’t care about something being ‘right’.

I'd go with the former, rather than the latter Phil. I personally do not have (yet) either the photographic skills, or processing skills to get images that the majority of others would like. That said, I like my edits, albeit some being OTT. If we all agreed on what we like, then forums would just be for back slapping I guess

I personally think the sky in that image is a dogs dinner, I’m not against ‘adding drama’, but there’s more to creating a dramatic image than a bit of unsubtle vignette

I actually agree with you to a point Phil. It was for effect and drama. I think it achieved it BUT not at all subtly. I could have spent more time trying to find the best ways to improve the sky, but again, I liked it's effect

if you want to improve, then listening to critique is essential.

I do agree with that Phil.

And photographers who confuse ‘I like that’ with ‘that’s good’ are muddying the waters for themselves and others.

Good analogy

"Good" is subjective. "Technically good" is one thing but if an artist achieves his goal with an image, whether you like it or believe it to be "good" is really neither here nor there. Now.. if you want to sell your images then "good" in the eyes of your target market is important but not if your images are purely for your own personal pleasure.

Very true. I am certainly not one to pluck artists images out and give my personal opinions to all and sundry, but the reference to Picasso sums it up I guess. When I see these images, I question them as I just do not get the artistry. But, others do, and that's it in a nutshell, beautify, is most definately in the eye of the beholder

Thanks all for replying and giving me your opinions, view points and standings on the subject. It's interesting to see what side of the fence, if not hovering on it, that others are on

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I guess I didn't word that quite right

I think I read you correctly and I'm answering that the quality of
post processing is as important as the quality of the capture.

They are both part of a chain of good decisions.

 

[sirch]

A couple of related, but may be not quite on-topic thoughts (but I’ll let you decide)

1. I think there is a difference between processing which enhances an image and processing which fundamentally changes what was originally captured. There is no right or wrong but I feel that a photograph (i.e. painting with light) should be a rendition of the light captured from a scene, so for me something like replacing a sky is starting to cross a line between a true photograph and an artistic creation. Adjusting brightness, contract etc., even locally or differentially; or say removing sensor artefacts is for me still a true photograph because the technology used to capture the light is not able to recreate how my brain processes the light entering my eye, not to mention put on that the emphasis that my brain then draws out from the scene.
   
   
2. There is also a difficulty of forming an opinion about a single image when the processing starts to abstract it away from the natural scene. When a photo is s straight rendition (allowing for a few tweaks) it is fairly easy to apply simple rules of composition, exposure, white balance, etc. to form an opinion about the photograph. However when it is more heavily processed an image in isolation can often be misinterpreted by the viewer and is much better judge against a body of work (as is the case with other visual art) to gain a sense of the process which the photographer is applying and the artistic intent which is being sought. This latter point also applies in reverse too I think; when a photographer who generally produces straight renditions creates a one-off “heavily” processed image, it is not clear if they are just trying out the sliders (nothing wrong with that) or if they set about it with a clear intent.

 

[riddell]

This argument will go on an d on, but its also very misunderstood by many, in fact I think its one of those things many want to misunderstand, because they think they can get away with things at a lower skill level. Laziness.

The simple truth is that you always need to get it right in camera in the first place. Even with a perfect in camera shot, you still need to post process. This is final polish and will vastly improve an image.

Post processing should not be used to correct mistakes in camera. If you are doing this you are failing as a photographer. Make too many mistakes or mistakes that are too extreme and you'll either not end up with as good an image, or it will take you ages to achieve the same result.

There are of course excepting when shooting that you have a total plan to edit afterwards, and the important thing is that it a plan, not just a mistake. Often done for practical or cost reasons.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

Either I wasn’t clear or you’ve misunderstood my post completely.
Good is subjective to the point of irrelevant, and it’s not a word I used.

I’ve a half written post running round my head about ‘visual literacy’ driven by the number of images I see on the internet that have been processed to the point they have lost all credibility.

And I quote:

“And photographers who confuse ‘I like that’ with ‘that’s good’ are muddying the waters for themselves and others.”

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

A couple of related, but may be not quite on-topic thoughts (but I’ll let you decide)

1. I think there is a difference between processing which enhances an image and processing which fundamentally changes what was originally captured. There is no right or wrong but I feel that a photograph (i.e. painting with light) should be a rendition of the light captured from a scene, so for me something like replacing a sky is starting to cross a line between a true photograph and an artistic creation. Adjusting brightness, contract etc., even locally or differentially; or say removing sensor artefacts is for me still a true photograph because the technology used to capture the light is not able to recreate how my brain processes the light entering my eye, not to mention put on that the emphasis that my brain then draws out from the scene.
   
   
2. There is also a difficulty of forming an opinion about a single image when the processing starts to abstract it away from the natural scene. When a photo is s straight rendition (allowing for a few tweaks) it is fairly easy to apply simple rules of composition, exposure, white balance, etc. to form an opinion about the photograph. However when it is more heavily processed an image in isolation can often be misinterpreted by the viewer and is much better judge against a body of work (as is the case with other visual art) to gain a sense of the process which the photographer is applying and the artistic intent which is being sought. This latter point also applies in reverse too I think; when a photographer who generally produces straight renditions creates a one-off “heavily” processed image, it is not clear if they are just trying out the sliders (nothing wrong with that) or if they set about it with a clear intent.

I think when it comes to accuracy, the only time a photographer is bound to represent truthfully what is before him is:

a. if that's what he has stated/promised he is doing or
b. if he's photographing something that he's selling

Over and above that a photographer, just like a painter, has full artistic license, though for the purposes of critique he or she would do best to state that intent up-front, so no-one is confused by what they see.

 

[Jelster]

Personally I want my SOOC images to be as close to what I had in my head at the time. Sometimes that just isn't possible, due to dynamic range or other factors, so some editing is essential. A friend of mine is quite happy shooting green screen images and putting them into an amazing background, but that's not for me.

I do look at some images and ask myself "how did they get it to look like that?" especially when the photographer has really managed to bring out the detail somewhere. But then I need to learn that skill....

 

[Baloo]

The negative you produced in a film camera was never the finished product, the variables between the negative and printing were always a huge factor in producing the end product. My father was a keen amateur photographer in the 60's and 70's, as a kid I knew that exciting photography trips were rare and very boring hours spent in the darkroom frequent!

So the process for film was negative-darkroom-print. In digital it is In camera capture-computer-display or print. So I tend to think of the in camera capture as "the negative" and however it is finally viewed "the print". Just as with film the better the "negative" is the better the final "print" will be.

Maybe slides were the only true photographs!

 

[swag72]

As an astrophotographer - For me it is processing all of the way.... without processing I'd have nothing but a black screen as you can see here.....

A processing map - From start to finish by Sara Wager, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

This argument will go on an d on, but its also very misunderstood by many, in fact I think its one of those things many want to misunderstand, because they think they can get away with things at a lower skill level. Laziness.

The simple truth is that you always need to get it right in camera in the first place. Even with a perfect in camera shot, you still need to post process. This is final polish and will vastly improve an image.

Post processing should not be used to correct mistakes in camera. If you are doing this you are failing as a photographer. Make too many mistakes or mistakes that are too extreme and you'll either not end up with as good an image, or it will take you ages to achieve the same result.

There are of course excepting when shooting that you have a total plan to edit afterwards, and the important thing is that it a plan, not just a mistake. Often done for practical or cost reasons.

I think that "getting it right in camera in the first place" should mean getting it right in the sense that you have a better chance of ending up with the end result you want either with no processing or after processing and in the latter case for the reasons others have stated above... For example I very often expose to the right and when doing so I'm getting it right in camera as far as the end result (after) processing is concerned but certainly wrong in camera if the out of camera shot is the final picture. If you can follow me there

And again as others have said this is nothing new that came new with digital. People have been doing things to affect the end result since photography day 1.

 

[jerry12953]

As an astrophotographer - For me it is processing all of the way.... without processing I'd have nothing but a black screen as you can see here.....

A processing map - From start to finish by Sara Wager, on Flickr

Gasp!

 

[riddell]

I think that "getting it right in camera in the first place" should mean getting it right in the sense that you have a better chance of ending up with the end result you want either with no processing or after processing and in the latter case for the reasons others have stated above....

No. I always shoot to get everything right in the camera in the first place. This means getting everything right in the first place.
Lets say I shoot a model in an outfit for an advert. It goes through a while process.

Carefully choose model, location, MUA, Hair stylist. And on site with me is the client and the clients art director and a stylist. Anything they are not happy with they let me know. Between the team we work out exactly the location, setup, props, styling and all those little details. I'll set the lighting up and get it perfect. In the meantime the model is being made up, outfit prepped, steamed, styled perfectly.

We start to shoot, I'll shoot tethered and the client, art director, stylist and of course me can see exactly what is being shot immediately on the screen. Anything that needs altering, we'll do. Adjust the models hair, add more foundation. Bring the steamer out again because we've seen a crease in the dress. The stylist will tweak the dress making it flow perfectly. The client now seeing the image on the screen wants edgier lighting, so that is adjusted.

And so on. We may be there all day. A few hundred iterations of virtually the same image, viewed and tweaked and verified by a whole team until it is perfect in camera and perfect on the screen.

But no way is that a final image. It may well then take another day of editing to get it to a commercial standard. I know that, the client knows that.

However if we didn't get it as perfect in camera beforehand, the editing may take two days and or may not looks as good.
There is always processing to do. Even using all the best equipment, team and so forth, the camera does not output a commercially acceptable image.

 

[woof woof]

You aim to get it right in camera but accept and indeed do spend time working on it to produce the final picture. I suspect that from a technical standpoint you're not getting the very best image out of your camera that it's caoable of and for a base starting point you're probably relying more on what the people at the camera manufacturer think an out of camera file should look like.

I have the luxury of being an amateur and no one therefore has any say but me and I'm not waiting for anyone elses opinion on what the picture looks like on screen 10 seconds after it's been taken

And not to labour the point too much but getting it "right" in camera as in producing a picture that looks nice straight after leaving the camera may well limit how much goodness you can get from the file.

 

[HoppyUK]

This argument will go on an d on, but its also very misunderstood by many, in fact I think its one of those things many want to misunderstand, because they think they can get away with things at a lower skill level. Laziness.

The simple truth is that you always need to get it right in camera in the first place. Even with a perfect in camera shot, you still need to post process. This is final polish and will vastly improve an image.

Post processing should not be used to correct mistakes in camera. If you are doing this you are failing as a photographer. Make too many mistakes or mistakes that are too extreme and you'll either not end up with as good an image, or it will take you ages to achieve the same result.

There are of course excepting when shooting that you have a total plan to edit afterwards, and the important thing is that it a plan, not just a mistake. Often done for practical or cost reasons.

Good summary

 

[IanD]

Really enjoying reading people's opinions and the ensuing debate. Good to see slight variations on the general thought process, but it's most definitely a 'get it right in camera first'

This argument will go on and on, but its also very misunderstood by many, in fact I think its one of those things many want to misunderstand, because they think they can get away with things at a lower skill level. Laziness[/QUOTE}

I love this quote - it's quite damning in it's literal sense but sums up certainly my skill set. This isn't really a debate about me personally, BUT, this is me right now

 

[Nod]

For me, it's all in the capture. An awful lot of (awful) shots are processed in an effort to polish turds and in 99% of cases, it doesn't work.

 

[woof woof]

One other thing to perhaps think about is that your PC and the software on it are possibly better and more powerful tools for getting you where you want to be than what's inside the camera.

I'm not saying that anyone should just shoot willy nilly and attempt to polish a you know what in post capture but what I am saying is that getting it right in camera, as in getting as near to the final result as I can, normally isn't my priority. What I aim to do is to in camera get what I need to enable me to get the end result I want after post capture processing.

I do think that there's a danger of tending towards a little snobbery with the "getting it right in camera" viewpoint as if processing a file on the pc is a bad thing when I don't think that it is. It's just another process, a link in the chain. The only time I'd make a conscious effort to get in camera jpeg's ready to use immediately they've left the camera would be if someone was waiting for them but thankfully for me that's never the case

 

[riddell]

I do think that there's a danger of tending towards a little snobbery with the "getting it right in camera" viewpoint

There really isn't any snobbery.

Deep in my heart I'm a classic, old school photographer, but the reality is as a professional photographer, I constantly need to balance quality, speed and cost to keep clients happy. Through years of experience I know how to do that.

Getting it right in camera in the first place results in better quality, and is faster and cheaper.
Let be honest at the end of the day for me this is business if it was quicker and or cheaper to not worry about getting it right in the camera and I could achieve the same quality, then I wouldn't bother getting it right in camera.

 

[HoppyUK]

There really isn't any snobbery.

Deep in my heart I'm a classic, old school photographer, but the reality is as a professional photographer, I constantly need to balance quality, speed and cost to keep clients happy. Through years of experience I know how to do that.

Getting it right in camera in the first place results in better quality, and is faster and cheaper.
Let be honest at the end of the day for me this is business if it was quicker and or cheaper to not worry about getting it right in the camera and I could achieve the same quality, then I wouldn't bother getting it right in camera.

I think there is some snobbery around it. 'Get it right in-camera' has become one of those old school mantras and while it's still a very good starting point, it's rarely 100% true and in fact there are some things you just can't do in-camera even if you wanted to.

The point for me is what you said in the last para of a previous post #16. There is always an 'optimum' way of doing things - maybe for best overall quality, or the easiest, quickest, cheapest, whatever. The key is knowing the best way before you even get the camera out

 

[Byker28i]

Surely it all depends on the purpose of the image.
If it's editorial or documentary then there's a demand to get it right in camera, either for authenticity or speed to deliver. Someone elses image will be used if you want a day to process a sports/news image so it's perfect...

At other times there's a need to use post processing as an example, the camera couldn't capture the whole range in one image.

So there's no one right answer. It depends...

 

[riddell]

The point for me is what you said in the last para of a previous post #16. There is always an 'optimum' way of doing things - maybe for best overall quality, or the easiest, quickest, cheapest, whatever. The key is knowing the best way before you even get the camera out

Yes, but these things that are cheaper or cheaper to do in post are rarely photographic, more to do with styling or setup.

Right now I'm adding some threads in to a button a jacket. On the shoot the button come off. Often we'd sew it back on, but we didn't have time on this shoot, and from experience adding a button back on digitally can be tricky to look really realistic. So in this case we just double sided sellotaped it in place, and now I'm adding the threads in post. That was the quickest way.

But I shoot lots of furniture and handles are always missing. Because of the parallax of the lens its difficult to clone handles digitially, so usually we swap them around, take multiple shots and then blend afterwards.

I also recently had to edit some awful modern signs out of a shot. It was quicker and cheaper for me to do that in post rather than for us to physically unscrew and remove them.

And there are lots of similar decisions made, but rarely is it photographic, settings, lighting, angles, that sort of thing, that's much, much quicker, cheaper better to get right in the camera in the first place.

 

[PaulButler]

For me the "getting it right in camera" mantra as @HoppyUK so eloquently puts it is about capturing the optimum "data" to work with for the purpose I intend to use the image for, be that a still life, landscape or portrait or whatever.

PP is a part of the image making process for me, no different to the darkroom in principle (no nasty chemicals or headaches for me). I much prefer PP to using a darkroom too. I can improve in both capturing the "data" aspect and the PP aspect which is what keeps it interesting I think

 

[Craigus]

Ultimately if you are doing it for a hobby then do whatever you enjoy doing the most. If you'd rather go out and snap away and then process them to death then go for it if it brings you more enjoyment. Some clearly just love using the gear and the photo is secondary to that. People enjoy photography for all kinds of different reasons. From a purely photographic point of view it's of course better to get it right in camera and the editing is just a further part of the process to 'refine' it.

Personally I prefer to get as much right in camera and enjoy being out shooting more than the editing, though there is some satisfaction in spending a bit of time on a good image to make it sing.

 

[jerry12953]

It was easy to understand what getting it right in camera meant in film days - especially colour slide. You were stuck with what was etched onto your film by the light hitting it.

In digital there are two alternatives - shooting jpegs, which the camera processes for you, and shooting RAW files, which need to be processed manually to obtain optimum quality. There are also still limitations to digital capture most of which can easily be overcome by the photographers use of software.

Digital processing is thus an unavoidable part of the "process" of photography now but the aim of most photographers would not be to rely on processing, would it?

Having said that one also learns how a digital image can be "improved" in ways that were just not possible with film, without going to extremes measures such as replacing skies, cloning out of objects etc. .

 

[StephenM]

I'll open up another can in a moment, but on the basic question, I want to get the best starting point in camera for the final image as I see it (note that this implies I know what I want before I release the shutter).

But - can't I stretch a point and if I see (when looking at the image on screen) another and very different interpretation, make a final print of that as well/in addition? Ansel Adams didn't always print his negatives the same way, and there could be a great difference between prints from the same negative made at different times. I doubt that he was in two minds about what he wanted at the time of exposure, so the variation must imply that he saw scope for flexibility in post processing after capture.

 

[myotis]

What's your thoughts folks - is it all about getting something right in camera? Are you pro or anti post processing? Is there guilt every time you move that slider?

I was lucky enough to get my first camera and access to a darkroom at the same time and have always seen capture skills and processing skills as part of an indivisible skill set needed by a photographer. Learning darkroom skills improved your capture skills as you learned what was required to get a good negative, good printing skills could rescue a poor negative, and good printing skills were always required to get a print that best represented the vision you had of the image at capture.

As every raw file is "processed" by the software before you can see it, and can be processed very differently depending on whether you are using Lightroom, or Capture One, or by the camera profile you opt for etc, there is no such thing as an "original" or "unprocessed" image. So getting it right in the camera is only really concerned (from a technical standpoint) with getting a raw image good enough to process into the final image you want to produce. Any guilt should be associated with "not" moving sliders, as by doing so you are handing over your vision to Adobe or Phase One or who ever.

I used to work with someone who was an absolutely brilliant printer, but I hated ever getting any of his negatives to print, because he never spent the time at the taking stage to get an "easy to print" negative. His negatives were nearly always difficult to print. I was a less good printer, and although I enjoyed printing, I didn't like being in the darkroom, so my efforts (and the reason I learned the Zone system) went into the capture stage, so I could reduce my time in the darkroom.

I see nothing different in using digital, you need a good raw image to get a good final image, but just as in the old days, a poor raw image can sometimes be rescued by skilled processing.

My preferences will always err towards the capture end, as I am always going to want the best starting point I can get, but that may not always be necessary (for others). One of my photography lecturers specialised in false colour composite prints, (mainly of flowers if I remember correctly) and he used sub-miniature colour film because the cameras were easy to carry, and the quality of the negative didn't matter as it was only the basis for complex images "created" in the darkroom. I am guessing he must have loved Photoshop when it became available.

How much processing you do, and at what stage an image becomes over-processed is up to the individual. I like Capture One, but there are a some vocal critics who totally reject it, because it "over processes" everything. On the other hand, I have watched several youtube videos about "natural" HDR, which I find way over the top for "my taste".

So I think the Capture vs Processing split is a false dichotomy. Just as in the old days, digital photographers still need to learn capture skills and processing skills in parallel. The emphasis of one over the other, should be driven by the type of images you want to produce and at what stage (capture or process) it makes the most sense to put the most effort into, which will vary from image to image, the circumstances, and your personal preferences.

 

[jerry12953]

I was lucky enough to get my first camera and access to a darkroom at the same time and have always seen capture skills and processing skills as part of an indivisible skill set needed by a photographer. Learning darkroom skills improved your capture skills as you learned what was required to get a good negative, good printing skills could rescue a poor negative, and good printing skills were always required to get a print that best represented the vision you had of the image at capture.

As every raw file is "processed" by the software before you can see it, and can be processed very differently depending on whether you are using Lightroom, or Capture One, or by the camera profile you opt for etc, there is no such thing as an "original" or "unprocessed" image. So getting it right in the camera is only really concerned (from a technical standpoint) with getting a raw image good enough to process into the final image you want to produce. Any guilt should be associated with "not" moving sliders, as by doing so you are handing over your vision to Adobe or Phase One or who ever.

I used to work with someone who was an absolutely brilliant printer, but I hated ever getting any of his negatives to print, because he never spent the time at the taking stage to get an "easy to print" negative. His negatives were nearly always difficult to print. I was a less good printer, and although I enjoyed printing, I didn't like being in the darkroom, so my efforts (and the reason I learned the Zone system) went into the capture stage, so I could reduce my time in the darkroom.

I see nothing different in using digital, you need a good raw image to get a good final image, but just as in the old days, a poor raw image can sometimes be rescued by skilled processing.

My preferences will always err towards the capture end, as I am always going to want the best starting point I can get, but that may not always be necessary (for others). One of my photography lecturers specialised in false colour composite prints, (mainly of flowers if I remember correctly) and he used sub-miniature colour film because the cameras were easy to carry, and the quality of the negative didn't matter as it was only the basis for complex images "created" in the darkroom. I am guessing he must have loved Photoshop when it became available.

How much processing you do, and at what stage an image becomes over-processed is up to the individual. I like Capture One, but there are a some vocal critics who totally reject it, because it "over processes" everything. On the other hand, I have watched several youtube videos about "natural" HDR, which I find way over the top for "my taste".

So I think the Capture vs Processing split is a false dichotomy. Just as in the old days, digital photographers still need to learn capture skills and processing skills in parallel. The emphasis of one over the other, should be driven by the type of images you want to produce and at what stage (capture or process) it makes the most sense to put the most effort into, which will vary from image to image, the circumstances, and your personal preferences.

Good stuff (and short enough to read.........)

 

[droj]

You're the "artist", your mind creates the idea and you do the rest. If you like the result then you've gotten to where you wanted to go. Some will love it, others will hate it, but that's art.

There is a lot of confusion about what 'art' is. A lot of people use the word to describe what is actually not art but craft. But language itself is a bit loose - words often have several meanings and they change over time. But idiosyncratic HDR whimsy, for instance, certainly is not art. Not in any dignified sense of the word.