How right do you try to get it before :-

F1.2

F1.2

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,421
Name
Allen
Edit My Images
Yes
Pressing the shutter button ???


With the ever evolving Photoshop and lightroom with functions to alter everything

How much attention do you pay to getting everything as good as possible before taking the image ?

I have listened to other photographers saying " I will sort it out in photoshop later "

I must be old school as I like to sort as much as I can before exposing a image


Just curious as to what other do ?
 
1. I try to get it right in camera.
2. I often fail miserably by not checking the viewfinder sufficiently/not noticing things sticking out of heads/not being able to get the right angle.
3. Thank heavens for Photoshop!
 
F1.2 said:
I have listened to other photographers saying " I will sort it out in photoshop later "
Click to expand...


I really hate that... I also hate the tendancy on these forums of people actualy advising people to shoot somehting wrong (mostly white balance) in RAW and sort later... it makes me want to scream!

I try to get it as right as I can (inc WB) but I always have to PP as well.. usualy an auto this or that and a crop straighten... I do a lot of rush photogrpahy with sports :) so I cant get it right in camera every time.. I am not an expert..

But if it can be setup to get right first then why not... I understand RAW is good for artistic uses... but to shoot in raw knowing your taking a bad pic but can fix later is aaaaaargh!
 
I try (and usually fail!) to get it as right as possible when taking the shot.

However, I use raw so always need to have a tinker with the sharpness and doesn't take too much longer to adjust levels, exposure, highlights etc,. and don't feel there is anything wrong with doing that.

I don't use Photoshop so don't do any actual manipulation of the image.
 
ernesto said:
IHowever, I use raw so always need to have a tinker with the sharpness and doesn't take too much longer to adjust levels, exposure, highlights etc,. and don't feel there is anything wrong with doing that.
.
Click to expand...

Theres absoloutly nothign wrong with doing that.. in fact its more likely to be the norm :)
 
I knew someone would say I was normal one day. It's taken 44 years but I knew it would happen. :)
 
im relatively new to this so i make alot of mistakes but that is why i have digital if i dont like it i just delete it change the settings and shoot again where i can

i always like to have a play with it after to see what i can do with it and if i can improve it
 
KIPAX said:
I really hate that... I also hate the tendancy on these forums of people actualy advising people to shoot somehting wrong (mostly white balance) in RAW and sort later... it makes me want to scream!
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone advises to shoot with the wrong WB. I think most people say leave it on auto WB and if the camera happens to get it wrong, you can change it later.

Its not really any different to letting the camera guess the exposure and then adding +/- EV compensation. Except in this case you happen to be overriding the camera after the shot rather than before.
 
For me it depends on the situation, not that I'm anywhere the level of Kipax but if I'm shooting cricket/rugby you don't often get a second chance so I'll try and set up as best as I can in the first place, check for blinkies on the screen to make sure I'm not blowing the highlights and makes small adjustments as I go along if needed.

I will still go though PP for each photo but obviously the less I need to do when I've taken 300+ shots the better :lol:

However I am guilty of the "I'll fix it in photoshop" approach on occaisons, for instance at a kids party where they wont stay still for love nor money and let you get some nice shots.

My neice's party recently was a prime example, large french doors and windows along one side of the lounge, kids running everywhere.... It was a bit of a lottery to say the least :lol: Went into manual mode, 1/125 (to try and get reasonably still images) f6.3, ISO 800 (I think) and bouncing the flash off the ceiling to try and counter shadows caused by the sunlight coming through the windows/door.

It was a little hit & miss but got plenty of usable shots in the end :)
 
I spend a long time setting the camera up before shooting so I can get it the best I can straight from the camera. I don't shoot raw all the time and I find with Canon DPP I can do enough to save a jpeg if neccessary. Although I have got PSE9 on the computer I can't remember the last time I used it, I think it was last year though, but I find DPP more than good enough for what I need.

I'm no expert, but I like what I do and the people who've paid me for shoots are very happy with what I do, but I much prefer taking the shots right than altering them all afterwards.
 
they cant call themselves photographers more like graphic designers
 
brad131987 said:
they cant call themselves photographers more like graphic designers
Click to expand...

Did it involve a camera? then its photography. Even old school dark rooms involved editing of photos.

I've nothing against photoshop if it makes the final image better.

Yes, you try and get it as perfect as possible in camera, but sometimes you have to shoot the lesser of 2 evils and know you'll have to do some editing.

I shot a wedding and the venue was lovely, but half of it was a building site. a massive car park the other full of cars or you could shoot towards the lake. But the lake had several big warning signs and red safety rings around that I knew I'd need to PS out.
 
composition i will get it how I want it in the end. I seldom crop my images. I sometimes rotate it so its level however.

Exposure I will try to get it right, over exposed loses detail and under expose adds noise.

There is nothing wrong with editing but getting it right first makes the editing part easier.
 
I didnt mean in the sense of cropping and removing unwanted unavoidable things
But stuff like fake Tilt shift effects

I edit pictures how you said but not always
I like them original as a memory
Unless it's for someone
I always keep the original one though
 
brad131987 said:
I didnt mean in the sense of cropping and removing unwanted unavoidable things
But stuff like fake Tilt shift effects

I edit pictures how you said but not always
I like them original as a memory
Unless it's for someone
I always keep the original one though
Click to expand...

The problem is not with fake effects, or any editting, it's HOW it's done.

HDR can look great if it's subtle. I've seen it look great when it's massively overdone and it looked like a drawing.

Sometimes photoshop is the only way forward. I've took 7-8 photos of the same group at a wedding, they would not do as they were told and ended up taking heads from one and putting on the other to make 1 that was good.

then there is this thread:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=228513
 
brad131987 said:
I didnt mean in the sense of cropping and removing unwanted unavoidable things
But stuff like fake Tilt shift effects

I edit pictures how you said but not always
I like them original as a memory
Unless it's for someone
I always keep the original one though
Click to expand...

Try fake this in PS. :p

JK3Wd.jpg

:p
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Try fake this in PS. :p

or this
:p
Click to expand...

If you were good enough with PS, and knew it inside out I imagine it would be highly possible ;) but it's be a lot longer than shooting with a T/S lens :p

and I can't believe that free advertising for ocuk after the watermarking issues ;) :p lol
 
This is getting to a pet subject of mine.

I love photography because its different from3D Imaging (which I used to do for a living).

Anything is possible with 3D imaging and if you search google for photo realistic you will find a million examples of images to make my point.

A few examples:
NOT DONE BY ME!
cars1-1.jpg


DONE BY ME:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=414880

I dont like over processing of photographs to make them look like 3D images. Photographs have flaws and that is what makes them special.

I take the time to get the photograph the way I want it (which is probably not the way everyone else would have it but that just me) and do minimum PP.
 
F1.2 said:
Pressing the shutter button ???


With the ever evolving Photoshop and lightroom with functions to alter everything

How much attention do you pay to getting everything as good as possible before taking the image ?

I have listened to other photographers saying " I will sort it out in photoshop later "

I must be old school as I like to sort as much as I can before exposing a image


Just curious as to what other do ?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I'm a newbe and I try to get it correct in camera too. I find myself taking a lot fewer shots now but the keeper rate has gone way up. Don't get me wrong I touch up every shot but the end result is much better for me if the raw file is as good as it can be going into pp.
 
brad131987 said:
they cant call themselves photographers more like graphic designers
Click to expand...

I agree. I was so excited to try out hdr (photomatix) but as I search for info about it 90% of the pics were badly over saturated and unnatural looking. I'm sure that there are plenty of very good examples but from what I saw I wanted nothing to do with it. :shake:
 
This question is as old as digital photography, and the answer is older.

As a photographer, your primary tools are a camera and light.

Your secondary tools are in the choice of capture and output medium, and any processing necessary to get the results you require.

If that means you shoot JPEG and do minimal PP, that's the equivalent of shooting print film and letting Boots straighten it out as best they can.

Heavier handed processing techniques (ie cross processing), saturation enhancemnents (ie choosing different film, chemicals papers) and retouching (er.. retouching) were all done in the film days by photographers who required that output.

Digital has simply taken what was once the preserve of specialists and given it to anyone with a copy of Photoshop.
 
For the best results you need to:

1/ Get it right in the camera
2/ Get it right in post-processing

Leaning how to do the second is as important as the first if you are interested in the best possible result.
 
It does make me laugh when people get high and mighty and say they never use pp on their photos.
What they are admitting is they shoot jpg and let the camera do all the hard work for them and don't realise that the image will be processed to buggery by the camera anyway. ( before anyone starts arguing this is different from setting up your own picture styles, sharpening etc In camera. You are still doing pp when you do this)
As Jon said above, getting the pp right is as much a skill as actually taking the shot. It's was the same in the film era and it's the same today.
 
It is amazing how people forget that photography always been a two stage process, and fail to embrace the changes from film to digital in the processing, while fully praising the change to digital in cameras.

I always try to get it right on camera, simply because is less work later on when processing images.
 
soon you will not need a camera just a few clicks of a button and you get a digital picture on screen of what you wanted :)
 
I get it as right as time allows. Post processing is not a crutch I regularly rely on to save 'lesser' shots (although it does happen from time to time), its just part of creating an image.

I really don't see why people have hang-ups about software. It's not like you get a badge for NOT using it. Like with shooting in manual, some folk see it as a form of purism, which is nonsense really...
 
I never set out to get it wrong in camera, but don't always get it right, but editing is always needed to bring out the best

As for tilt and large, you can't fake it like the real thing, and th fakes don't often look good, maybe just to try it but if you want it do I for real
 
in my year of DSLR photography i have always used pp, i realised from the off it is all part and parcel of the same thing, to me you will have to be one exceptional photographer to get it right straight out of camera, whatever right is,
every photo is a lie, but in them is a mountain of truth
 
Depends what your shooting really doesn't it. If your working studio stuff, be it home or professionally then your doing most of the work pre shot, i always find i can't polish turds that come from this kind of work but the ones i actually pay attention to at the shot need very little to no post process.
 
Simon photo said:
Depends what your shooting really doesn't it. If your working studio stuff, be it home or professionally then your doing most of the work pre shot, i always find i can't polish turds that come from this kind of work but the ones i actually pay attention to at the shot need very little to no post process.
Click to expand...

It's true that you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
 
I've no problem with either. If you hand a decent photo to a Graphic Designer they could probably create some nice effects and help make the image look its best.

If you hand them a camera and get them to shoot the image and also edit it, I don't think they would achieve as good results. I guess the photographer will have a specific skill set both with the camera and the software to obtain the desired results, which would differ from a pure graphics artist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top