In this day and age of post processing, why bother to bracket your shots?
Some people move out of their comfort zone regarding subject matter and shooting conditions. I knew from 1950's onwards, one single exposure was not going to get the best out of every situation. Bracketing was one way of covering the result in camera, instead of relying on time-consuming darkroom/ computer manipulation.
I who seldom bracket and think i should do it more look forward to more ideas but I would do it to avoid additional noise caused by increasing exposure in dark areas and to avoid specular highlights where 1 ev would make a difference.
Since there is so little cost to bracketing, I think it still can be a good tool.
You can do a lot with post processing but you cannot create luminance that was not in the original exposure. Plus, you can do so much more in post with bracketed images.
Thanks to all for the advise. I for one would like to be more technically proficient so I could produce the best version "in camera" and then enhance a little with PP to make a good photo pop.
In this day as in the old days, to cover my ass. To come home with the 'shot'. You can never go back.
I often don't have the inclination or more especially the time to detail it all out.
And lastly, it is just too simple now. Only one push of the shutter - multiple exposures.
gvarner wrote:
In this day and age of post processing, why bother to bracket your shots?
High Dynamic Range. One can increase the dynamic range of the image beyond what a single image can.
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
High Dynamic Range. One can increase the dynamic range of the image beyond what a single image can.
That's exactly what I was going to say.. if you bracket, you can combine the bracketed shots into hdr... it works best if done on a tripod and doesn't have any live movement.. sailboats swaying etc.. but it make wonderful landscapes, softens waves etc.
gvarner wrote:
In this day and age of post processing, why bother to bracket your shots?
Because if your camera didn't capture detail in the highlights or shadows, no amount of post processing can put the detail there.
gvarner wrote:
In this day and age of post processing, why bother to bracket your shots?
Using post processing to "fix" exposure does reduce the image quality. Especially with landscape shots, even if you aren't going to merge the images (HDR), bracketing gives you the option to decide later which exposure was best. Then additional PP will not affect the IQ as much.
gvarner wrote:
Thanks to all for the advise. I for one would like to be more technically proficient so I could produce the best version "in camera" and then enhance a little with PP to make a good photo pop.
I'd say you answered your question from original post.
Another good reason for bracketing is to cover ourselves when we do subsequent cropping. Given the high resolution we're getting out of our cameras, we can safely (and within limits) shoot wide and crop tight; bracketing gives us the freedom to re-think our composition and still have excellent exposure.
gvarner wrote:
In this day and age of post processing, why bother to bracket your shots?
If there is any question on the "proper" exposure, it is always better to bracket so save the most possible detail and information at each exposure. Then you can always use HDR processing to combine them to get the full range and detail.
I don't bracket.
I've seen files that were 3 stops under exposed and brought up in post but you'd never know it.
I try not to clip the highlights, I tend to underexpose slightly.
To be clear, this doesn't mean that I don't care about the exposure and just wing it...but I'm just saying, I don't bracket for exposure reasons.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.