Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Thought for the day
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Jun 26, 2015 00:00:05   #
mdfenton
 
"Get it right in camera, unless it's easier to fix in Photoshop."

Reply
Jun 26, 2015 00:21:20   #
Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC
 
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."

Reply
Jun 26, 2015 00:24:56   #
chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Jun 26, 2015 00:34:27   #
jack schade Loc: La Pine Oregon
 
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.

Reply
Jun 26, 2015 00:41:34   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
For a lousy photographer, everything is easier to fix Photoshop.

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 06:34:08   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
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.

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 07:09:05   #
Shoeless_Photographer Loc: Lexington
 
chase4 wrote:
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


...and h-bombs.

Reply
 
 
Jun 27, 2015 07:14:13   #
Bud S Loc: Logan Ohio
 
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:

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 07:37:48   #
jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY
 
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

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 12:10:02   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
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.

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 12:41:55   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
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.

Reply
 
 
Jun 27, 2015 12:42:04   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
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.

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 13:01:09   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
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)

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 13:01:11   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
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)

Reply
Jun 27, 2015 13:04:04   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
chase4 wrote:
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.


and womenÂ….
;-)

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.