That has not been even close to my experience. But I can't say for your experience.

In any case, I have posted two examples of images that could not be taken as jpegs and used SOOC or even processed to the degree necessary to create a technically acceptable images. Neither image was intended to be a prize winner - the first was a high contrast scene - which would challenge any photographer with any camera, and the second the same, but with a little less contrast. In either case, a jpeg would have looked pretty bad - noisy, blown highlights etc.

That is precisely the point. It was the only shot he was able to get. He used his knowledge of the luminance of the moon to establish his exposure. The rest is history. The image evolved over time, and years later he even used a chemical bath on the only negative to enhance the contrast. Getting it right in the camera really means getting what you need to do what you want to do with the image.

here are two images. You probably think the first one is awful. But from my point of view, it is exactly what I wanted and I knew the camera couldn't capture the whole tonal range - so I exposed it to get the most amount of information in the single file, and used post processing to enhance and reveal the image I witnessed when I clicked the shutter. That is what getting it right means today, and what it meant in 1941 when he took the picture.

You may want to read this recounting of the shot.

http://anseladams.com/ansel-adams-anecdotes/

But what happens when the camera can't get it right?

Coming from the film days as well, every single one of my black and white images were adjusted - Dodged, burned, masked for different contrast in different areas when using multicontrast paper and filters, toned, etc etc etc. We all did it.

As you have pointed out, the notion that a jpeg cannot be effectively adjusted is incorrect - clearly it can be. However, the degree that you can do that is so much less than what you can do when you start with a raw file, and the ease with which you can make the adjustments actually makes it difficult to rationalize not recording raw images. We are all raw shooters. Some of us are content with using the coarse settings in the camera and letting the camera follow their instructions for contrast, saturation, sharpening, color and white balance, etc. Others want to reveal more of what the camera captured, or re-balance, apply emphasis, remove distractions, etc etc etc from their images. The heavy lifting of tonal and color shift is easiest and will yield the best results when done with a raw file, primarily due to the bit depth and color space limitations inherent in jpegs.

Below is an extreme example of what I am talking about. There is no way any this SOOC capture of this scene would make any sense. You either expose for the sky and let everything else go back - one interpretation. Or you could expose for the walls, and let the sky go blank - another interpretation. Or, as I did, get both the sky and the walls to "work" for a more meaningful image. I was with a friend and shot this to make a point about why post processing is a good thing to learn how to do. She has since downloaded and is currently using Lr and Ps. Her comment was that if she had known how easy it is to work with raw files she would have started doing it a long time ago. She also lamented the fact that so many of her images are just jpegs. Just an observation from someone who has been taking pictures for a while and new to raw conversion.

.

Getting it right in the camera can mean two things - 1) produce an image that has good balance, good color, focus, contrast, etc, and 2)record the information you need to have all the tonal values necessary to CREATE the image you want people to see, or create the image as it impressed you when you first saw it.

There is only so much a camera can do when it comes to recording tonal values. In many landscape situations, the dynamic range exceeds the cameras capabilities when shooting jpeg, or the tonal values are flat (low contrast scene), etc. One who understands this can set their camera to record the maximum amount of data shooting raw, with the deliberate intent of making adjustments in post. This is not fixing a mistake, but rather an intentional evaluation of the scene and optimizing the camera settings of aperture, shutter speed and ISO to get what is needed to make the image they want.

It is the main difference between photographers who shoot wildlife, natural subjects, landscapes etc, and those who mainly shoot portrait or products in a studio setting or outdoors where there is added light and the correct exposure for a face or a product rarely changes. Often these situations employ strobes, flags, scrims, reflectors etc - to get it right in the camera.

The last category is the photojournalist - who often has no choice but to adhere to #1 above - where the story is the focus of the image, and if shadows are blocked up and highlights are blown, this is not frowned upon as long as the photographer gets the shot - timing, luck, correct focal length are more important than creating a beautiful image.

Unless you are photojournalist, or shooting under controlled lighting - there is no reason to settle for what the camera produces - based on your settings. If you are a creative photographer, then snapping the shutter is not the end but rather one of the early steps in the creative process. (visualizing and composing obviously come first).

Each situation demands either one or the other approach. But I can tell you, a landscape photographer who claims to "get it right in the camera" usually produces flat and lackluster images, and when the dynamic range is extreme, the highlights and shadows are blown and blocked up respectively. They have failed to fully exploit the capabilities of the medium, or put another way, they left money on the table.

That being said, there is one more area of image manipulation that needs to be mentioned. Even with perfect lighting and makeup, a fashion portrait of a face can require up to 90 minutes or more of post processing to meet the quality standard of a typical creative director - and there is an industry consisting of expert image retouchers to "make the magic" happen. The last image is an example of how a creative director might approach the retouching of a face, using a marked up print. For many, the image would be fine as is, or SOOC. But to an art/creative director more is obviously needed to make it perfect in his/her eyes. Obviously, if you are shooting senior portraits, it is neither necessary nor practical to go to this extreme, but you may if you are looking at formal portraits at a wedding, and the client is willing to pay for perfection.

There are several quotes from Ansel Adams that will help with understanding why image manipulation is important:

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.”

“Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.”

“We must remember that a photograph can hold just as much as we put into it, and no one has ever approached the full possibilities of the medium.”

“The sheer ease with which we can produce a superficial image often leads to creative disaster.”

“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”

“I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.”

and my favorite:

“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.”


The classic example of taking the shot and fixing it in post. Which would you rather have hanging in your living room - the "I got it right in the camera" or the heavily altered one?

.

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.