Get it right in camera or fix with PP?

Craikeybaby

Craikeybaby

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,590
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
Which do people prefer?

Personally I'd rather spend time setting up filters etc to get the shot as right as possible in camera rather than using photoshop.
 
I always try to get it right in camera myself, and then when I fail miserably, fix in PP - simply because the 'closer to correct' you can get it in camera, the more you have to work with in PP.

That said, as I've chosen to shoot in RAW, I always have to go through a PP workflow anyway - but I prefer to think of this as developing rather than fixing.

'Fixing' comes in to play when I've just plain buggered up the exposure, not noticed the glaringly obvious bloke in a hi-vis jacket waving to me, had one too many so my horizon bears a striking resemblence to the last moment of the titanic, or not been able to get close enough so need a harsh crop and so on.
 
I do as much as possible in camera, I'd rather be in the field setting the camera up than sat in front of the laptop trying to bring it back. I find Capture One's local adjustments really useful for times when getting it right in camera isn't a possibility, things like odd areas of bright sky that couldn't be filtered successfully.
 
I try to get it right in camera but it's always good to know that I kind of know enough photoshop to be able to rescue some of my more cack handed attempts.
 
as I dont have a tilt shift lens or a Nikon*
I need PP to "enhance" my shots :-)

*(in camera overlay)
 
I can't believe this is just a landscape thing?

I was once told that all digital pictures should ahve some sort of PP done on them..

However I truly hate the general trend on this forum where so many people give advice along the lines of.. shoot in raw and fix later... white balance off? shoot in raw and fix later.. that is telling people to purposely take a bad picture and fix later :(
 
It has to be BOTH

Get the image right in-camera and ENHANCE (even just a tad) in Photoshop.

All digital images do need a little contrast and other adjustments. This is what the developer/printer of your film would do years ago.
 
KIPAX said:
I can't believe this is just a landscape thing?

I was once told that all digital pictures should ahve some sort of PP done on them..

However I truly hate the general trend on this forum where so many people give advice along the lines of.. shoot in raw and fix later... white balance off? shoot in raw and fix later.. that is telling people to purposely take a bad picture and fix later :(
Click to expand...

It's not just a landscape thing, but landscape seems to me to be the area of photography where filters are used most commonly.

I agree that some element of post processing is alway going to be needed when shooting raw, I just thought I'd get some discussion/activity in the new forum.
 
The better the photograph comes out the camera the better it will take a bit of tweaking in post (generally speaking).
 
The only filter I use is a 10 stop B+W ND, and rarely. Everything else happens in PP via combined exposures or digital filters, I don't like faffing around with little bits of glass on the front of the lens, it's definitely not for me :lol:
 
KIPAX said:
I can't believe this is just a landscape thing?

I was once told that all digital pictures should ahve some sort of PP done on them..

However I truly hate the general trend on this forum where so many people give advice along the lines of.. shoot in raw and fix later... white balance off? shoot in raw and fix later.. that is telling people to purposely take a bad picture and fix later :(
Click to expand...

:plusone:

I think most people shoot in RAW because they simply don't realise how much you can do in JPEGs - always quoting that "8 bits can't cut it" - never trying to see what it CAN do.

.
 
Furtim said:
'Fixing' comes in to play when I've just plain buggered up the exposure, not noticed the glaringly obvious bloke in a hi-vis jacket waving to me, had one too many so my horizon bears a striking resemblence to the last moment of the titanic, or not been able to get close enough so need a harsh crop and so on.
Click to expand...

Virtually none of which is a REAL reason for using RAW - you can do all that using JPEGs.

.
 
You can of course edit jpg images. You just have more control with a RAW file and it can be easier to edit than a jpg (depending on what you are fixing). It is a fact that there is more detail held in the RAW image - although to be fair whether most need that detail is another question :)

Horses for courses.
 
It shouldn't be a case of shoot and then back at base think about how to 'enhance' with PP - the two are integrally linked

You should envisage the end result in the same way you compose the image in your mind prior to raising the camera; then shoot accordingly

Personally, I think the use of 'filters' at capture is largely a waste of time as everything bar the Polariser can be created better in PP

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Personally, I think the use of 'filters' at capture is largely a waste of time as everything bar the Polariser can be created better in PP
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't agree, if your subject isn't moving you might have time to take more than one shot and blend them to capture a full dynamic range but if your subject is moving (waves at sea for example), you've got a really dark foreground which will block out if you expose for the sky, and a really bright sky which will blow if you expose for the foreground then how can you replicate in PP the effect that quickly popping a grad on will do?
 
Both for me.
 
Could not agree...MORE.

My view is it depends, for certain things you are shooting something a certain way to make advantage of it later, ie you are shooting FOR post producion as opposed to shooting to fix later. Shooting to fix later is a bad way to shoot imo.
I think the idea of fixing white balance and exposure later is going to make life harder really.

KIPAX said:
I can't believe this is just a landscape thing?

I was once told that all digital pictures should ahve some sort of PP done on them..

However I truly hate the general trend on this forum where so many people give advice along the lines of.. shoot in raw and fix later... white balance off? shoot in raw and fix later.. that is telling people to purposely take a bad picture and fix later :(
Click to expand...
 
Right in the camera to produce a file ready for post-processing.

You need to know how to set up the camera to get the output and know what to do with it in post to get the best from it.

"I always get it right in camera and never process" and "I shoot raw and fix in post" are equally silly attitudes to me. At best the first attitude implies a failure to understand the full potential of digital workflow and the second a failure to understand the full potential of the camera. Either attitude is understandable if there is time pressure to turnaround an image. But if you have the time and don't use it you're unlikely to be getting the best potential result.
 
EOS_JD said:
It has to be BOTH

Get the image right in-camera and ENHANCE (even just a tad) in Photoshop.

All digital images do need a little contrast and other adjustments. This is what the developer/printer of your film would do years ago.
Click to expand...

Totally agree!
 
Its like some of the commercial image websites like airliners.net you read how much post processing and sharpening that they require just to submit an image.... so by the time you've done all that, it not the image you took any more, its digital art. Its like the competition winner that got his images barred from the competition, he did so much processing of the original image that it was nothing like the original image he took, don't get me wrong, what he did was a vast improvement over the original, but it was digital art not photography.

Get the settings right in the camera, post processing should be quick, a few level adjusts, bit of sharpening and cropping, 1 minute or 2 max.
 
markmullen said:
I'm afraid I don't agree, if your subject isn't moving you might have time to take more than one shot and blend them to capture a full dynamic range but if your subject is moving (waves at sea for example), you've got a really dark foreground which will block out if you expose for the sky, and a really bright sky which will blow if you expose for the foreground then how can you replicate in PP the effect that quickly popping a grad on will do?
Click to expand...

That's a seascape and the forum is landscapes ;)

But yes - seascapes are the only time a Grad actually has any use without affecting other elements of the composition; assuming there is only sea in the image that is, add coast/cliffs and grads add a PP problem

Dave
 
Originally Posted by EOS_JD
It has to be BOTH

Get the image right in-camera and ENHANCE (even just a tad) in Photoshop.

All digital images do need a little contrast and other adjustments. This is what the developer/printer of your film would do years ago.
Click to expand...

Totally agree too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top