Getting it right in camera

[superpippo]

As said previously - change the setting from Nuetral which will do very little - maybe just a touch of sharpening. If you have a vivid setting try that; you may not like it but it will show you an extreme!

Thank you . I will try that

 

[superpippo]

I would maybe have a play around with the different jpeg settings/effects, make a custom one and adjust it until you have something you like. One of the main benefits of shooting jpeg is that you (should have) a usable photo with minimal, if any further adjustments needed.
What pp software are you using?

Good advice, thank you.

 

[superpippo]

In the first picture, the sky is cloudy. In the second picture the shadows are very diffuse. Both suggest a dull day. You cannot alter that in post processing. If you do not want flat pictures, wait for a sunny day. If you want to take pictures on a dull day, choose your subject so that the flat light suits the subject.

The light will still be flat and he cannot alter that. Modelling in an image relies on small highlights and shadows which just are not there.

I’ll say it asno one else has...
Photography is the art and science of capturing light.

You’re shooting on a dull overcast day, to create contrast in your images requires you to process it in, whether that’s in camera for jpeg, or sat at the computer. If you want contrast images, the obvious answer is shooting in contrasts light.

You did ‘get it right in camera’, but ‘right’ isn’t what you think the shot is lacking.

Thank you both.
I appreciate what you are saying re the light - my photos aren't usually that bad !!
Perhaps also the fact that I was using the zoom at its fullest - 300mm /450 mm equivalent and that has affected the metering over what I perceived the shot to be as i saw it without the camera - a much brighter day than appears in the shot.

 

[superpippo]

You could theoretically adjust your in-camera jpeg settings to get better results, more in the direction of your post processing, but the problem is that each image will require different settings, and unless you have a WYSIWYG live view which can show the effects of settings before taking the shot, you'll have to do quite a bit of setting and chimping to get good settings for each shot. And the results of spending a few minutes more on getting it right in the camera might not be quite as good as what you could get from one of those helpful editors with a "fix my photo" button, and definitely not as good as you'd be able to get with 20 seconds of post processing once you'd become good at it.

Personally I find it much easier to shoot not to "get it right in the camera", but to get it in the camera with the maximum post processing latitude. I shoot RAW + JPEG with the JPEG adjusted for lowest contrast and low saturation so SOOC they look pretty dim and flat. On the other hand however those JPEGS have the maximum processing latitude for JPEG adjustment, which reduces the frequency with which I feel the need to go back to the RAW for maximum processing latitude.

It takes me only a few seconds looking at the unprocessed JPEG in the computer to decide if the image is worth bothering with. Since less than 10% of my images are worth keeping speed of initial review is important. All the RAW editors I've tried would more than double that time. A quick improvement of the JPEG takes 10-20 seconds, which is all that most of my quick snaps require. If the image looks worth printing at A3, or was something very interesting snatched with the wrong settings or an unpleasantly high ISO, then I'll go to the RAW image to get the best from it. That never takes less than a few minutes, and can take a lot longer.

If I go out on a planned photo shooting expedition intending to do my best with lenses chosen for the purpose, maybe a tripod, etc., I used to find ten years ago that I usually spent as much time finding and processing the best images from that shoot as I did taking them. Back then I was doing little more than duplicating what I used to be able to do in the darkroom with an enlarger. Now it's more like three times as long post processing the images as taking them. That's because I've got better at post processing. I can usually revisit my best images from ten years ago and noticeably improve them using the better skills and software I now have.

When I shot film with an SLR I tried my best to get it right in the camera, because it took so long to do anything in the darkroom. I can now do in ten minutes in a computer what it would have taken me hours to do in a darkroom, plus I can do all sorts of things quite beyond darkroom technology. I remember one interior murals contract in film days where it took me days of experiment and discussion with local experts to find the right colour filters to correct the colour shift of my long exposures plus the colour cast of a hundred years of exposure to dirty urban air and tobacco smoke. That was getting it right in the camera. Doing that today requires no filters and no more than a minute in post processing.

Interesting and informative advice Chris.
Thank you for taking the time to reply at length.

 

[superpippo]

You are absoloutly right...

I think Phil V has hit the nail on the head.. if you could go back to the scene you shot in exactly the same conditions and hold up both your pics.. the unedited and the editied.. which one do you think would look most like the actual scene ?

An excellent thought. I think that the unedited one would be more accurate!
Maybe my eyes were seeing the seeing the scene as it was but my brain was processing differently, more as i wanted it to be.

 

[superpippo]

You're processing to try to create lighting conditions which just weren't there at the time of shooting. Embrace what you've got or go looking for different light.

The latter can require a lot of time and effort. You shouldn't expect to just wander out with a camera and produce stunning images without a lot of luck, a lot of planning or both.

Thank you.
I don't think that I was trying to produce a stunning image in this case, just trying out some new equipment , after which I was a little disappointed with the SOOC image.
But you are right that i cannot 'create lighting conditions which just weren't there at the time of shooting'

 

[superpippo]

This isn't really about jpg vs RAW, or jpg processing or whatever, its you trying to rescue a poorly shot image.

You've shot an image in poor lighting conditions, not got the light right, underexposed the image and probably got the white balance wrong as well.

Its not a good shot, you should have made adjustments and shot again. The AV meter is almost certainly fooled by such a huge expanse of sky and has made the image darker as a result.

Waiting for better light would have been a good idea. Moving to a different angle so more light falls on the sail would have been good to.

However if I was standing where you were and had to shoot at that time of day with those conditions, I'd have metered off the boat, dialled in the settings in manual and then dealt with the sky and keeping it in check to pull in within DR with a grad. I'd have manually set the white balance too.

Even if I'm shooting RAW, which I do 99% of the time, you still want to get it right in the first place, and that means using the correct techniques in the first place.

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it.

 

[superpippo]

@KIPAX - thank you for your contribution to this.
A lot of what you have said puts my mind at rest.
I do not want to be seduced by the argument that RAW is intrinsically better than JPEG - just which is the best tool for the job.
But as you accurately say in one of your posts - "...he asked how to improve his photography so he doesn't have to rescue so much.. its not about how to rescue images at all.. its about how to take a better picture .... which in this situation we all (inc yourself) believe he couldnt anyway "
I was concerned about the SOOC images but I am feeling a lot better now

 

[superpippo]

Than you to everyone who has taken the time to reply.

 

[john.margetts]

Maybe my eyes were seeing the seeing the scene as it was but my brain was processing differently, more as i wanted it to be.

This is what your personal optical system does. Each cell on your retina effectively has its own 'ISO' rating which is constantly varying. Your brain takes the colour information from your eyes and does its best to average the colours to dull grey.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

the best corrected image straight out of the camera is unlikely to be the be the best that can be obtained. The best exposed raw image will most likely look very poor when directly processed as a Jpeg, with out any adjustments. Raw Images should be exposed to capture the maximum data, rather than the best looking image in camera.

 

[Cagey75]

Does everyone who shoots in raw spend so much time and effort post processing.. really ? Nowerdays theres not a lot you can do in raw that you cant do in jpg with a well exposed picture... I mean 90% of people want a well presented picture... not everyone is entering competitions... guessing most photos in this day and age end up on social media anyway.... yes some will want to use raw but not needed most of the time IMHO

Some of us just enjoy the processing. I tend to do mine late at night, kids gone to bed, I'll have me cuppa and settle into it. I do a cull before any PP session so it'll only be the images I actually want to process. Nothing major, i don't rely on it but I do enjoy the transformation, it can indeed bring an image to life. There is nothing wrong with post processing whatsoever, and if you're going to do it, you may as well shoot RAW. The files have more depth, you have better control over the WB and DR. Unless you really don't want to bother with PP, or you are really, really tight for space, there's no reason not to shoot RAW>

 

[GreenNinja67]

Some of us just enjoy the processing. I tend to do mine late at night, kids gone to bed, I'll have me cuppa and settle into it. I do a cull before any PP session so it'll only be the images I actually want to process. Nothing major, i don't rely on it but I do enjoy the transformation, it can indeed bring an image to life. There is nothing wrong with post processing whatsoever, and if you're going to do it, you may as well shoot RAW. The files have more depth, you have better control over the WB and DR. Unless you really don't want to bother with PP, or you are really, really tight for space, there's no reason not to shoot RAW>

I agree with Keith (a first I think)

I like PP'ing around with my RAWs. With different PP you can make 1 shot into at least 2 very different scenes / interpretations.

If you enjoy shooting jpegs great, just remember the camera's already done PP for you so it's not "straight out of the camera", it's straight out of the PP lab.

 

[Cagey75]

I agree with Keith (a first I think)

I like PP'ing around with my RAWs. With different PP you can make 1 shot into at least 2 very different scenes / interpretations.

If you enjoy shooting jpegs great, just remember the camera's already done PP for you so it's not "straight out of the camera", it's straight out of the PP lab.

is the lotto on tonight, i should do it!

I have nothing against Jpeg shooting either, I know plenty of people who only ever shoot Jpeg and they produce really nice images. They either don't have the time, or can't be bothered, they are happy enough with the camera doing the final touches. I think as much time would be spent fiddling with the WB and in camera contrast, sharpening etc ... by me, as I spend in post. I don't want to have to stop to arse about with WB in particular when out shooting in changing conditions

 

[Forkbeard]

The originals look OK to me, I maybe would've used exposure compensation to brighten it up a bit. The neutral setting gives fairly bland results a lot of the time IMO, maybe try vivid. The only problem with vivid settings is that they usually up the contrast which *sometimes* reduces detail in the highlights (the sky being a good example) on some cameras.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

As said previously - change the setting from Nuetral which will do very little - maybe just a touch of sharpening. If you have a vivid setting try that; you may not like it but it will show you an extreme!

Just as a side note - the picture displayed on the LCD on the rear of the camera incorporates the jPEG settings you have set in the camera (The image on the rear screen is the jPeg rendition of what you have just shot), so if you try all the different settings (Neutral, vivid, portrait ect) you will instantly see the effect of these settings on the rear LCD screen.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I read a lot about 'getting it right in camera' and whilst I enjoy the pp process, I would like to ensure that I do not spend a disproportionate time at the computer.
However many of my shots leave a lot to be desired when sooc.
Couple of examples attached taken last weekend, with which I am severely underwhelmed
All jpegs and shot in aperture priority.
Taken with a decent camera and lens - really the shots are pretty poor.
PP carried out - exposure, blacks and white adjusted - some warming and a spot of saturation.
What am I doing wrong?

View attachment 132761

View attachment 132762

View attachment 132763

View attachment 132765

I really can't be asked to read other replies but I can give you a very clear and simple answer.

1. Shoot RAW. ALWAYS.

2. Expose properly and double check the histogram.
Your shots are very very clearly underexposed from camera, and by quite a lot. Use exposure compensation in camera. Canons typically and on-average get best results with +2/3 but it can vary drastically from scene to scene.

3. First shot in particular is done in fairly crappy light. This doesn't help the shot and will always require contrast boost to make it half-decent (not great, that just won't happen without quality light)

4. Most edits like exposure, shadows, highlights and white balance should take no more than 30-60s per image to do in post as long as you know what you are doing. It is hardly a big hassle

5. Some images can not be made in one shot. You will know this clearly well before executing the shoot and how to combine it all once you get to this level. This should be an exception to majority of normal routine images.

 

[superpippo]

Thank you @LongLensPhotography

 

[shapeshifter]

Thank you both.
I appreciate what you are saying re the light - my photos aren't usually that bad !!
Perhaps also the fact that I was using the zoom at its fullest - 300mm /450 mm equivalent and that has affected the metering over what I perceived the shot to be as i saw it without the camera - a much brighter day than appears in the shot.

Your camera thinks it's looking at an 18% grey card so that's why it exposed the photo grey.You should have opened up to make the grey card lighter.

 

[superpippo]

Your camera thinks it's looking at an 18% grey card so that's why it exposed the photo grey.You should have opened up to make the grey card lighter.

Thank you

 

[PhilH04]

eeerm no.. a RAW file has zero processing done in camera.. a jpg has some at least even at default ..so yes the raw file would be worse..

Not precisely true given that most converters apply some form of pre-processing. I fully appreciate your reasons for shooting JPG and if I was a sports photographer like your good self there is a good chance that I would do the same.... Getting things as close to right in camera is just as important in raw as it is in JPEG the only difference being that you can work with 16 bits of data with raw as opposed to 8 with a JPEG oh and of course with JPEG you need to get your WB correct as it hard baked into the file whereas a raw is WB agnostic.

There are reasons behind everyones choice to shoot in whichever format they choose, mine is raw for the sort of work I do, for the sort of work you do then JPEG obviously suits you better, like I say, I can see both side of the argument and can appreciate the plusses and of course minuses to shooting in either format.

At the end of the day for the OP to achieve his aim everything needs to come together, shoot in crap light and you will get a crap result, raw or JPEG it makes sweet FA difference (raw will give you extra leeway, that is all) so to get things right in camera you need to be aware of what the various 'styles' and adjustments can do and then set those appropriately (and accept that in camera they will be fairly crude with no chance of fine tuning) in order make the best of the JPEG engine in camera.

If I were to choose to shoot in JPEG (highly unlikely) then I would work with the mindset I did when shooting transparencies.

 

[Ste_S]

the best corrected image straight out of the camera is unlikely to be the be the best that can be obtained. The best exposed raw image will most likely look very poor when directly processed as a Jpeg, with out any adjustments. Raw Images should be exposed to capture the maximum data, rather than the best looking image in camera.

Yup. Shooting jpg in anything other than flat light on a uniform background is always going to be a compromise - normally your highlights will be over exposed and your shadows under exposed. Which makes a fallacy of 'getting it right in camera'