Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Thought for the day
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Jun 26, 2015 00:00:05   #
mdfenton
 
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."
 
Jun 26, 2015 00:21:20   #
Bob Yankle (a regular here)
 
While it may seem cavalier, I have often said, "I don't need to get it perfect in camera, I just need to get close."
Jun 26, 2015 00:24:56   #
chase4
 
Bob Yankle wrote:
While it may seem cavalier, I have often said, "I don't need to get it perfect in camera, I just need to get close."


Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Jun 26, 2015 00:34:27   #
jack schade (a regular here)
 
Getting it right in camera might entail taking many images that will need to be finished in post processing. Focus stacking would be just one example. I do like to get it right in camera.
Jack.
Jun 26, 2015 00:41:34   #
rook2c4 (a regular here)
 
For a lousy photographer, everything is easier to fix Photoshop.
Jun 27, 2015 06:34:08   #
Gene51
 
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."


Getting it right in the camera means different things to different people. Would you consider the contact print of the image in the link getting it right in the camera? Most of the GIRIC crowd would dismiss this image as worthless.

He didn't "fix" the image in post processing - he obviously got it right in the camera in order to extract all the tonal values he needed to create the iconic work of art.

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

In digital, getting it right means recording all the data necessary to produce the image you envisioned. It does not mean letting the camera produce a pretty jpeg. Often the two are one in the same. But just as often if not more so, an image, recorded as a raw file, will look underexposed, faded, etc. But it will contain all the data needed. Of primary importance would be the highlights, which are not overexposed.
 
Jun 27, 2015 07:09:05   #
Shoeless_Photographer
 
chase4 wrote:
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


...and h-bombs.
Jun 27, 2015 07:14:13   #
Bud S
 
Gene51 wrote:
Getting it right in the camera means different things to different people. Would you consider the contact print of the image in the link getting it right in the camera? Most of the GIRIC crowd would dismiss this image as worthless.

He didn't "fix" the image in post processing - he obviously got it right in the camera in order to extract all the tonal values he needed to create the iconic work of art.

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

In digital, getting it right means recording all the data necessary to produce the image you envisioned. It does not mean letting the camera produce a pretty jpeg. Often the two are one in the same. But just as often if not more so, an image, recorded as a raw file, will look underexposed, faded, etc. But it will contain all the data needed. Of primary importance would be the highlights, which are not overexposed.
Getting it right in the camera means different thi... (show quote)


:thumbup:
Jun 27, 2015 07:37:48   #
jerryc41 (a regular here)
 
Bob Yankle wrote:
While it may seem cavalier, I have often said, "I don't need to get it perfect in camera, I just need to get close."

You must be paraphrasing something your heard a surgeon say in a hospital. :D
Jun 27, 2015 12:10:02   #
John_F (a regular here)
 
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."


Photoshop is unable to create image data - it can only operate on the bytes in he image file. If the camera output is flawed, Pgotoshop will be limited.
Jun 27, 2015 12:41:55   #
Gene51
 
John_F wrote:
Photoshop is unable to create image data - it can only operate on the bytes in he image file. If the camera output is flawed, Pgotoshop will be limited.


Actually, if you are familiar with Photoshop, you'll understand how to "create" image data.

Here is a funny example of how it's done.

http://designreviver.com/tutorials/how-to-create-a-superhero-stephen-fry-in-photoshop/

Remember, Photoshop is a photo editing tool, but a pretty powerful image creation/editing tool as well.
 
Jun 27, 2015 12:42:04   #
JohnSwanda (a regular here)
 
mdfenton wrote:
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."


I'll give an example. I shoot mostly business portraits, and often a guy's tie is not tight or a little askew, or there are some wrinkles in a shirt, or there are stray hairs sticking out, and I have found it is going to take more time to send them to the mirror and correct it, and maybe it still isn't right, than the time it is going to take me to fix it in Photoshop.
Jun 27, 2015 13:01:09   #
Gene51
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
I'll give an example. I shoot mostly business portraits, and often a guy's tie is not tight or a little askew, or there are some wrinkles in a shirt, or there are stray hairs sticking out, and I have found it is going to take more time to send them to the mirror and correct it, and maybe it still isn't right, than the time it is going to take me to fix it in Photoshop.


Here's another having to do with both composition and camera settings. First image is straight out of the camera. I deliberately underexposed the image to preserve the nice sky, knowing that the dynamic range of the camera could capture both detail in the sky and the underside of the bridge. This is an example of getting it right in the camera - capturing all the detail possible in the scene, and "working it" in post. Most of the GIRIC guys would say the first image is a mistake. Underexposed, faded colors, etc etc etc. I say they are wrong. The edited result could never have been captured in the camera, even with the Ken Rockwell approach to set saturation, contrast, sharpening to max, and color mode to vivid.

So while I agree that it is important to get it right in the camera, you need to understand fully what that really means - and in many situations, the untouched out of camera image is ugly.
image straight out of the camera - no adjustments
image straight out of the camera - no adjustments...
(Download)
Edited file.
Edited file....
(Download)
Jun 27, 2015 13:01:11   #
Gene51
 
JohnSwanda wrote:
I'll give an example. I shoot mostly business portraits, and often a guy's tie is not tight or a little askew, or there are some wrinkles in a shirt, or there are stray hairs sticking out, and I have found it is going to take more time to send them to the mirror and correct it, and maybe it still isn't right, than the time it is going to take me to fix it in Photoshop.


Here's another having to do with both composition and camera settings. First image is straight out of the camera. I deliberately underexposed the image to preserve the nice sky, knowing that the dynamic range of the camera could capture both detail in the sky and the underside of the bridge. This is an example of getting it right in the camera - capturing all the detail possible in the scene, and "working it" in post. Most of the GIRIC guys would say the first image is a mistake. Underexposed, faded colors, etc etc etc. I say they are wrong. The edited result could never have been captured in the camera, even with the Ken Rockwell approach to set saturation, contrast, sharpening to max, and color mode to vivid.

So while I agree that it is important to get it right in the camera, you need to understand fully what that really means - and in many situations, the untouched out of camera image is ugly.
image straight out of the camera - no adjustments
image straight out of the camera - no adjustments...
(Download)
Edited file.
Edited file....
(Download)
Jun 27, 2015 13:04:04   #
LoneRangeFinder (a regular here)
 
chase4 wrote:
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


and womenÂ….
;-)
Page: 1 2 3 next>>
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.