Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
You CANNOT get it right in the camera, unless...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 next>>
Mar 1, 2014 19:13:08   #
gessman
 
The subject of "getting it right in the camera vs. post processing keeps coming up here in uhh. I recently watched a video produced by Mark Wallace for AdoramaTV on this subject. He put it to a test you will want to see. It's 15 minutes long and well worth it.

Mark points out that images shot for immediate publication as with news, sports, or magazines have to be used compromised as to potential ultimate quality as a result of imposed deadlines and lack of time to post process. He also points out that it is absolutely compulsory that images for competition or to be hung in a gallery for sale must be post processed if they are to be competitive.

You can find Mark's video on youtube. Look for "Mark Wallace, Getting It Right in the Camera." It is his episode 235.

I won't comment further in this thread. It's self-explanatory but for any who do choose to comment, I will thank you in advance for your participation.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:16:14   #
Dr.db
 
gessman wrote:
... Look for "Mark Wallace, Getting It Right in the Camera." It is his episode 235...


Here's the link to said video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3T-qQFZsA

Thank you, gessman!

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:37:37   #
gessman
 
Dr.db wrote:
Here's the link to said video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S3T-qQFZsA

Thank you, gessman!


I left the url out on purpose. I submitted this thread a few days ago that I felt needed to be in the Main section and admin moved it to the Links and Resources section because it had a url in it. I sure hope that doesn't happen again because that thread only got 908 views up to now and more people need to see this video out of the 40,000+ uhh members. I appreciate your desire to be of assistance and just hope it doesn't backfire on me. :roll: :thumbup:

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:46:31   #
Dr.db
 
Sorry about that... just figured I'd grab the URL while I was there, after finding it - I should've known that you would have included it if appropriate... ;-)

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:49:41   #
gessman
 
Dr.db wrote:
Sorry about that... just figured I'd grab the URL while I was there, after finding it - I should've known that you would have included it if appropriate... ;-)


No problem - it should stick this time since I didn't include the url. Thanks!

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:50:55   #
romanticf16
 
gessman wrote:
The subject of "getting it right in the camera vs. post processing keeps coming up here in uhh. I recently watched a video produced by Mark Wallace for AdoramaTV on this subject. He put it to a test you will want to see. It's 15 minutes long and well worth it.
Mark points out that images shot for immediate publication as with news, sports, or magazines have to be used compromised as to potential ultimate quality as a result of imposed deadlines and lack of time to post process. He also points out that it is absolutely compulsory that images for competition or to be hung in a gallery for sale must be post processed if they are to be competitive.
You can find Mark's video on youtube. Look for "Mark Wallace, Getting It Right in the Camera." It is his episode 235.
I won't comment further in this thread. It's self-explanatory but for any who do choose to comment, I will thank you in advance for your participation.
The subject of "getting it right in the camer... (show quote)

Putting All the test items on a white board guaranteed a initial subject failure- the white surface predominated and camera meters are calibrated to an average scene or about 18% grey- a throwback to the film era. Every camera manufacturer will introduce its own color preference bias- use of the Color Checker can even out results. All RAW images will require some post production by definition. Jpeg captures will depend on the settings and programing of the camera's software. Again, the lens coatings and calibration of each manufacturer will give a different initial result, but each camera can be calibrated to produce the same or very similar result. Getting it right in the camera really depends on understanding the limits off your camera's sensor, meter, and the lighting conditions of the subject being with those parameters.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:52:41   #
Tea8
 
I think since someone else posted the URL and not you gessman it should stay here, but then again I'm not admin.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:55:12   #
Basil
 
He must number his episodes differently for Podcasts, I subscribe to his Podcast, but even the latest is only episode 153.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:58:32   #
Swamp Gator
 
gessman wrote:
The subject of "getting it right in the camera vs. post processing keeps coming up here in uhh. I recently watched a video produced by Mark Wallace for AdoramaTV on this subject. He put it to a test you will want to see. It's 15 minutes long and well worth it.

Mark points out that images shot for immediate publication as with news, sports, or magazines have to be used compromised as to potential ultimate quality as a result of imposed deadlines and lack of time to post process. He also points out that it is absolutely compulsory that images for competition or to be hung in a gallery for sale must be post processed if they are to be competitive.

You can find Mark's video on youtube. Look for "Mark Wallace, Getting It Right in the Camera." It is his episode 235.

I won't comment further in this thread. It's self-explanatory but for any who do choose to comment, I will thank you in advance for your participation.
The subject of "getting it right in the camer... (show quote)


I didn't see the video but I have to say that Mark would be off the mark if he truly believes "images shot for immediate publication as with news, sports, or magazines have to be used compromised as to potential ultimate quality as a result of imposed deadlines and lack of time to post process."

I see plenty of excellent news and sports images that do not look at all "compromised" and anything done for a magazine that is likely a weekly will have tons of time to do post processing if the situation is appropriate.

Even things shot on a strict deadline will more then likely need to be cropped and resized by a tech prior to publication so doing a quick Auto Contrast or something similar at the same time would not be a huge problem.

Now as far as news and sports go... backgrounds and objects in photos can not be swapped, removed or added but that is for journalistic integrity, not due to lack of time to PP.
Plus the whole idea of news and live action sports photos is to portray the realism of the scene and situation. The photographer and the publisher in those cases are not necessarily trying to produce pristine artwork.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 19:59:15   #
gessman
 
romanticf16 wrote:
Putting All the test items on a white board guaranteed a initial subject failure- the white surface predominated and camera meters are calibrated to an average scene or about 18% grey- a throwback to the film era. Every camera manufacturer will introduce its own color preference bias- use of the Color Checker can even out results. All RAW images will require some post production by definition. Jpeg captures will depend on the settings and programing of the camera's software. Again, the lens coatings and calibration of each manufacturer will give a different initial result, but each camera can be calibrated to produce the same or very similar result. Getting it right in the camera really depends on understanding the limits off your camera's sensor, meter, and the lighting conditions of the subject being with those parameters.
Putting All the test items on a white board guaran... (show quote)


Perhaps you could contact Mark Wallace or AdoramaTV and discuss it with them and come back here and post the results of your discussion. I'm not in a position to discuss with them or you. :thumbup:

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 20:03:24   #
gessman
 
Swamp Gator wrote:
I didn't see the video but I have to say that Mark would be off the mark if he truly believes "images shot for immediate publication as with news, sports, or magazines have to be used compromised as to potential ultimate quality as a result of imposed deadlines and lack of time to post process."

I see plenty of excellent news and sports images that do not look at all "compromised" and anything done for a magazine that is likely a weekly will have tons of time to do post processing if the situation is appropriate.

Even things shot on a strict deadline will more then likely need to be cropped and resized by a tech prior to publication so doing a quick Auto Contrast or something similar at the same time would not be a huge problem.

Now as far as news and sports go... backgrounds and objects in photos can not be swapped, removed or added but that is for journalistic integrity, not due to lack of time to PP.
Plus the whole idea of news and live action sports photos is to portray the realism of the scene and situation. The photographer and the publisher in those cases are not necessarily trying to produce pristine artwork.
I didn't see the video but I have to say that Mark... (show quote)


It surprises me that you would not view the video prior to commenting. :roll:

EDIT: I paraphrased his conclusion and might not have stated it as he would have chosen to so it would be good if each person could view the video prior to locking in on a position about it.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 20:05:01   #
gessman
 
Tea8 wrote:
I think since someone else posted the URL and not you gessman it should stay here, but then again I'm not admin.


Hi Tea8. Good to see you out and about. I'm hoping you're right about the url.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 20:12:25   #
Tea8
 
gessman wrote:
Hi Tea8. Good to see you out and about. I'm hoping you're right about the url.


Hey! I know it's been awhile. Good to see that old profile picture I like so much back. And I won't tell admin if the url means it's supposed to be in the links section. ;-)

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 20:46:35   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
gessman wrote:
... It's 15 minutes long and well worth it. ...

That was certainly worth viewing. It's not conclusive either way, as he admits at the end.

The first question is, what is the meaning of "it", which in this case is limited to exposure and range of luminance from black to white (0-255). He did not say much about the broader version of "it" that we often think about.

Since luminance is the result of the combination of the light falling on the subject and the reflectance of the subject, you might first question whether the target chosen is a fair representation of the real world. Very few normal subjects present us with a full range of luminance (Zone I to IX or X) - most have less range and a few more.

It was implied that an incident meter might give you a better starting point, but then you could just as easily dial in exposure compensation to get the camera to agree with the meter.

Nevertheless, I generally agree that we cannot nail the contrast and exposure to the point of being able to present the result without any adjustments, including dodging and burning. I don't think that the most skilled technical practitioners could do it without carefully controlling lighting and subject matter.

As for all of the other aspects (subject selection, timing, focus, viewpoint, composition, lighting, depth of field, camera shake, subject movement, etc.), I think that it is easy to argue that there is a lot you must get right in the camera because some errors are difficult or impossible to fix with post-processing.

| Reply
Mar 1, 2014 22:42:39   #
CaptainC
 
Well I can say with at least a little authority that Images for competition cannot be entered if straight from the camera. I just sent in my four entries for the PPA Southwest region judging and it was an exercise in attention to detail, Cloning out distracting stuff, burning down bright areas, bringing up detail in some areas, darkening edges, adjusting skin tones, skin texture, deciding on just the right crop, does it get a key line or not?, how thick? what color?

Of course you have to get it right in camera as far as the basics - focus, subject matter, the story you are telling...but then it is on to a few hours in Photoshop.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.