User ID

All of that. 👍🏼

User ID

Nope. Entertainment Quotient ;-)

Looking forward to a 16 page epic !

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The work is finished when the computer crashes.

srt101fan

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Literally....

R.G. Loc: Scotland

We have had painters like that for as long as we've had painters. The funny thing is, when you look into to who is most remembered you realise that history almost always favours those who had different priorities....

User ID

100% share that preference. I find zero rationale for any attempt to record what human vision sees.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

A machine catches its image from only what is before its lens. What a human “sees” is more previous memory than immediate present scene. Estimates vary, and circumstance must vary, but what we see at any moment in live scenes is 50 to 90% recall and only 10 to 50% incoming new data from the eyes. Therefor the only reasonable use for the machine image is to treat it as a very unfinished product and to finish it however one sees fit.

This principle was a very common understanding of photography when color imagery was exceedingly rare. Cheap universal availability of color has deceived the majority of users into the belief that “accurate” unmanipulated machine images can record and play back what human vision had perceived of a real-time scene.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Perhaps the exception would be intense action subjects. User skill, plus fast bursts, can catch the intended “perfect moment”. The user knows that moment and sees on playback that it has been recorded. There can be no question of whether the machine image matches the human vision of that moment becuz there was no human vision of it. The user’s visual perception was not engaged in the appearance of the scene becuz it was so preoccupied with critical timing.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Exactly. The only things about which I worry are getting the composition as good as possible and making sure no highlights are blown. Everything else, shooting raw, I adjust afterwards. Oh, and of course catching the moment when that is important to the image.

That's my definition of getting it right, not some marginally acceptable compromise decided by the limited algorithms of the camera.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

The Title is: Get it right vs fix it in post...

My response is- you can slice and dice this subject anyway, any individual wants to. It's your art, you choose what you wish to do, and it's your decision to make ~~~ and decisions have consequences. Blah, blah, blah.

I would suggest - that is the reason photography is considered an "Art."

The individual producer is free to do what they wish to do.... You choose one thing ~ some people don't like it --- You choose another thing ~~ and, other people do like it ???

... One other approach is - you choose what you wish to do - No Matter What - and you don't care what others think, so you just enjoy what you're doing....

In this discussion, you will have opinion after opinion being expressed and, the only one that really matters is the opinion of the producer of the "Photographic Art."

And, that's my opinion but, of course you have yours. LOL ... and, I will continue to enjoy reading this thread. To see what others think..

Cheers
George Veazey
#####

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

We all know that the camera does not capture what the eye sees. It certainly does not capture what is in the mind and imagination of the photographer (unless the photographer constrains their imagination to the limitations of the box in their hands instead of the one between their ears.)
So you can either go for the limited outcomes imposed by the camera manufacturer that constructed the device or you can view the camera as just one tool used in the process, embrace post processing and try to achieve your own vision.

Sharona Loc: Alpharetta, Georgia

Paul, my UHH hero, sign me up! I am guessing we could cover white balance quickly and move on to other topics for the remainder of the two hours.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Maybe you would permit an exception for cropping if the lens is shorter than desired and the resolution of the camera supports it. We all crop the world in front of us with the (variable for zoom) field of view setting the frame size. But if the lens doesn't reach and you got pixels to spare, there is no difference between cropping with the best lens you have for the exposure and then later in post. I still eat every morsel of food I put on my plate, but I don't mind composting a few pixels now and then because my lenses are too short. I would never pass up a scene just because someone with a trunk full of high dollar lenses once said it's not kosher, unless it's my rabbi or the pope. Even then, I'd probably do it and confess later. In other words, "it depends", as you wrote, when the fact ends.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My biggest rub is people telling people things like "Your not a photographer unless,... you use this lens, this camera, this process, shoot SOOC, edit this way, focus that way,...."

And, that's my opinion just like you have yours.

srt101fan