Dagrizz

There have been several threads on this topic.

The first camp does not or does minimal post processing after the shot. They just feel that they need to get it right in the camera.

The other camp is do a good job of getting the picture but rely on post processing to complete and finish the picture.

Well I just upgraded to the Olympus OMD E-M1 and notice that it has the capability to do editing right in the camera itself. I am sure that the other brands also have similar capabilities as well.

Doesn't that kind of make the point about getting it right in the camera not relevant any more?

Bill_de Loc: US

No. As good as cameras are today, every crop means you have thrown away pixels. That means you have limited the size of the print you can make. In most cases it may never be missed. But when the day comes that you want to make a huge print of your long awaited masterpiece, you will wish you had every last pixel.

I was at an Adobe seminar a number of years ago. Jeff Schewe was covering PhotoShop. Now he is a bit of a perfectionist, but he made a statement which stuck with me. We all know that JPEGs get degraded every time we make an adjustment and save the file. He said that to a lesser degree it happens with every image. Since everything we do to an image is done with numbers (zeros and ones), and numbers are often rounded, errors get multiplied.

I'm not saying we should skip a photo because we know it will be edited, just that we should strive for as little as possible.


---

Quixdraw Loc: x

Like a lot of things in life, getting it right the first time is a whole lot more interesting for many of us than having to fix things with technology after the fact. That we now can retrieve poor images later is irrelevant to those of us who have worked long and hard to be skillful in our craft.
My statement, of course, is not intended to prevent you from maintaining your self esteem.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I always try to get it right in camera.
A lot of images need minimal PPing.

I don't always succeed, in getting it right in camera.
In that case I don't have any problems PPing especially when it comes to noise reduction and final output sharpening.
Sometimes, mostly for "artistc" resons I may do a lot of PPing, and this will include B&W conversions.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Bill, I'll stick with Ansel Adams on this one. "The negative is the score. The print is the performance".

When I photograph using film, I attempt to obtain a negative that contains the range of light that the photographic paper is capable of utilizing. Burning and dodging make up for those areas which pose tonal challenges.

In digital, I attempt to utilize the capabilities of the sensor/camera processing to produce a negative (RAW) file that can be optimized by the post processing software I use, the digital equivalent of paper. Again, burning and dodging where artistically suitable.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-337991-1.html

--Bob

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Even talking about this horse manurer is a wast of time . Do what you
want to do , paint it black pant it white any thing . But it's a none subject
So stop bringing it up . It's so passay . and out of touch it makes me want to vomit .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Getting it right in the camera is the most misunderstood and hotly debated topic on UHH. It's proponents are against post processing of any kind (and probably lifetime members of this group - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Advocates of post capture manipulation are part of a long heritage of photographers and artists that envision the image, snap the shutter, and use post processing to complete the process that began with the shutter click.

One of the most famous examples of getting it right in the camera is this iconic image:

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

But if you look the image straight out of the camera - well I think the former group would absolutely reject it as flat, lifeless, boring.

But Ansel Adams had a vision and shot the image perfectly in the camera, and used his considerable post processing skills to make that image into what was to eventually become one of his most widely recognized prints.

Getting it right in the camera is not by any means using the camera to make a perfect image. Getting it right in the camera is capturing all the information necessary to make a successful image that reflects your intent, in spite of the fact that nature and the camera fell short on the task.

Almost universally, the Get it Right in the Camera crowd shoot jpeg, are confused by post processing, and generally are willing to accept mediocrity in their images, for the sake of simplicity.

The other guys usually shoot raw these days, and spend time going over an image to make it the way they want it to look, like the many professional and artistic photographers before them who leveraged the available technology to produce the memorable images they made. They would laugh at the GIRITC bunch.

For the record, there are several situations where GIRITC is still used - photojournalism, forensics, and in studio, where you have 100% control over the lighting. That last situation refers only to exposure and lighting, because studio images, depending on the client, will undergo the most post processing, especially if you shoot fashion and the MUA (make up artist) didn't do an adequate job - but that is less about photography and more about styling the shot. Regardless, it still needs considerable expertise in post processing to make an image reach it's potential.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Getting it right "in camera" will not always get an ideal image, most photographs can benefit from some PP, but will always be better if the image was captured right...(A bad capture cannot be made great with any amount of PP) imho

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I have a new computer, very fast gamer for photo work if ever needed. My monitor is a converted cell phone with a 3" screen. My photos look great compared to that 28" screen that I use for reading text. NOT :thumbdown: :roll: :idea: :?:

To quote: "capability to do editing right in the camera itself" THINK ... !!! Why on earth would you limit your self to a 3" screen? Those "get it right in the camera people" remind me of my mother and her Kodak Disc camera. She would show a little blurred blob and talk about how "nice" it is. Nice is a UHH favorite phrased used in the "critique section" !!! yuck gag. NICE IS A WORD USED BY SYCOPHANTS. NICE is not a critique. I attend a Camer Club that would hiss at a one word critique.. rarely is there a photo submitted that can not be improved by our pro judges who have been at it probably for 30 years each.

Post processing is a must if you are to achieve photo excellence .... noise, detail, contrast, and modification of individual color channels is a necessity. First and Foremost... is proper cropping and riding of extraneous items that show up in the photo that would not be seen in the 3" screen. Do you limit your self to 4x6" Drugstore prints?? if so fine right out of camera... then into the trash.

Time to get educated Dagrizz and get away from the lazy people who expect that a $5000 rig can be as well out of camera as a $150 Canon SX50 tiny sensor camera followed by Post. Check photos from those cameras on UHH you will see.

Read the following on composition and you will come a long way. Composition is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A PHOTO:
http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/article_index.htm

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

As you have discovered, "getting it right in the camera" has lots of variables, which is part of the reason that I chose Canon over Nikon. I like the way the Canon software engineers programmed the Canon to get it right better than I liked the way the Nikon software engineers programmed their Nikons to get it right........ Also, ever since Paul Simon took Nikon to the top of the pop charts back in the '70s, seems like Nikon is always more expensive than the equivalent Canon.

Even in all my Canon cameras, I can choose to change the default software programming. I can change the brightness, sharpness, etc., and I can do it for different types of pictures: portrait, landscape, etc.

So, to me, people who say they try to get it right in the camera and poo-poo anyone who uses post-processing usually are the type of people I don't associate with. I don't really like their holier than thou attitude.

As my wise old grandmother, back in 1966 as she sat at the dining room table cutting pictures apart, pasting bits and pieces here and there, and then putting her photographic creations in her scrapbooks and photo albums, told me, "What comes out of the camera is just the basics to start with."

I should also say that absolutely nothing that comes out of any of my five cameras is ever what I want because I don't do photos. I take pictures and make art out of them, art which I call Photographic Art and sell at Fine Art America to the tune of a little over $3,000 a month right now. I was hoping to get to $5,000 a month by December but another startup company has taken half of my time each day.......

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Getting it close in the camera is very important. But as noted above, the camera has maybe a 3" screen on which you are evaluating the result. Is that large enough to do a good job of editing? When you edit in camera are the edits reversible? If you make a mistake can you go back? Can you make copies of the image so you can preserve the original and try different edits to see which one you like? How much time are you spending fiddling with your camera while other shots are passing you by?

I much prefer to do my postprocessing at my desk after the fact when I have time to do it and I can expand the image to see what I'm doing.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Try spellcheck - its built right into the text editor! :

manure
non-subject
passé

Chefneil

Then don't read the post, Bram Boy. To some, it is relevant. To some it is a way of looking at the workflow of taking a picture.

If you don't want to be bothered with this way of thinking, then don't read about it.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

No. In camera editing tools are nowhere near as good as PP programs.
For me, I'd rather be out shooting than sitting in front of a computer trying to turn a snap shot in to a photograph.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

That depends what you mean by right. I always try to get the best image I can in the viewfinder, but if every shot turned out perfectly, there would be no post processing software. I find that I crop almost every image, even though I consider the framing when I shoot. With the image sitting on the screen in front of me, I can take the time to examine it and decide if I want to include everything. Perfect framing isn't always possible when you're shooting.