drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Why are there so many out there just fixing it in post? I wonder if the shot good negatives when there was film. We now have a digital world and all I hear is fix it in post. Should we not never ever get a great shot in the first place? I say best shot in camera and only if needed fix it in post. My video camera days in college taught me get the shot right the first time and you never have to fix it in post. I was also taught post is where you can add all the effects and special stuff to images you made right the first time. Working as a pro wedding photographer the studio wanted it done right without post help. So why shoot the image with fixing it in post later a main theme here on UHH? Top photographers I studied under said get it right the first time because we cannot go back and shoot it again.
I do yearbook stuff like I did in film days for extra cash since I retired. I shoot jpeg's a lot because that is all the yearbooks need and if need be you can open and fix them in Adobe Camera RAW somewhat. So I make sure all my exposures are good the first time with little or no post needed.

Bill_de Loc: US

There is a difference between 'fixing' in post and 'editing for effect' in post. For those who enjoy post processing, raw provides a huge canvas to produce what they saw in their mind that could not be produced in camera.

For those who have to 'fix' in post all the time, maybe they need more practice or mentoring.

--

brucebc Loc: Tooele, Utah

I agree, film and processing were expensive, so I was more careful to get it right the first time.

BB4A

Agreed.

My failing to achieve a good Execution of the Planned shot is nearly always a problem... that can’t be fixed with extravagant use of post processing in the Close. I’m obviously biased by my own perspective (my own distorted view of reality), but the photographs I’m most proud of have always been those where I made so few mistakes that a small amount of “sensitive editing for effect” (I like that term, Bill!) has complemented and added to the finished image.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

With the exception of photojournalism and some sport photography when the pro needs to provide the photos right away, most pictures you look at are processed. I mean work from pro photographers.

And they are processed, but not because they didn’t get it right in camera.

Why not just enjoy the content? Why would you care how the photographer created the results?

JPEGs or raw, edited or SOOC, it should not matter.

The only question is, do you like the photo or not?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Because you could do all this "stuff" in the darkroom with film, but how many of us had that luxury? I used to shoot slide film, and did masking of the 35 mm image and reshot in a slide copier to get the effects I wanted. Which involved another trip to the Lab and waiting for prints that may, or may not work.

Digital Photography was the great equalizer. Now, 20 minutes in Photoshop and I have the final look that I envisioned. As far as getting it right out of the camera, well that's nice when it works, but often it doesn't, which is why post production is so useful.

So, Devil's Advocate time, why haven't you tried digital post production?

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I seldom fix anything in post. I think that many who shot film for many years just can't program themselves to fix it in post. Now what I see is the problem - Going manual and shooting RAW. Many beginners shoot manual when they don't have the any idea of what they are doing and then since they are shooting in RAW they can fix it in post. Just my Not So Humble Opinion. - dave

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Getting it right upfront is always best.

Too many times tech is used as a crutch instead of as a tool.

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Ansel Adams said it best: “The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.” – Ansel Adams

I see no reason the words "RAW file" could not be substituted for "negative".

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

We seem to be in a recycle phase, as this question has been asked and answered many times. If I were only shooting for yearbooks I'd shoot jpeg and I'd get it right every time. But I shoot a lot more than yearbooks and I like my work to be all it can be. So, I do a lot more. I create mood, tone, atmosphere in processing; I clean up yucky stuff in the water; I clean up the animals; I even put the tips of feathers back on birds; I change skies as needed; I make trees longer in some cases; I do HDR and Panos, the list is endless. I make art, not school pictures.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I think some of you guys worry too much about the tech stuff.

Not to mention, that untouched photos don’t mean anything. A snapshot is a snapshot, no matter what.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Exactly.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I submit that because the OP finds the practice of pp "fixing" irritating and inexplicable, he/she is "seeing" more instances than actually exist. You know how something can get under your skin and appear to be more of a problem than it really is?

However, the vast majority of UHH users are hobbyists and many are casual snapshot shooters. Some don't have enough experience - or guidance from more experienced photographers - to even be aware that some of their exposures or other mistakes are a "problem," let alone how to prevent them.

Wouldn't it be great if once a month UHH members who feel the need to frequently complain and criticize, would instead post a positive topic? A personal story of inspiration, photos that blow us away with their creativity and/or technical perfection, an offer to mentor a newbie? Too much to ask?

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Linda, you must be in a very positive mood today...good for you! Keep it up.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Maybe, drklrd, some of us aren’t getting paid like professionals for our hobby activity. And, as others have suggested, maybe we are taking a good baseline image and extending it to match some artistic concept we might have in mind. Thank you for belittling the rest of us, Mr. Pro. /Ralph