"Getting it right in the camera."

[ameerat42]

"Getting it right in the camera."

Who is for some focused discussion on this statement as a topic?

May I suggest:
1. What is "right"?
2. What can you get "right" in a camera? (And its converse.)
...
...

Reminder: please keep discussions polite. Perhaps too, any images posted should be kept to a minimum, perhaps posted as links.

Finally, I will not begin as I do not want to start of in any particular direction.
Am.

[MissionMan]

I think the challenge with getting it right in camera is that you need to know what you are looking for.

If I go out looking for a specific shot, then that works, but the challenge in your earlier stages (or areas outside your comfort zone) is you can look at something and sometimes you need to find a shot. its not that you spray and pray, but that you try different options to view the outcome. You may try 3 options at a variety of Aperture. Once you have identified the shot, you generally know in future and it's far easier to get it right in camera first time.

[fess67]

My view...

I love to post process, it is an integral part of my enjoyment of my hobby. That said, I do not want to spend a long time correcting 'basics' so for me getting it right in camera is about lighting and exposure for the most part. Some framing maybe but I tend to do most of that via cropping in post.

I think if I was doing this for a living then that approach would give me a solid grounding to ensure I spent as little time processing a shoot as possible.

[ricktas]

For me 'getting it right in camera' means correct focus, correct exposure, correct composition, correct ISO, correct aperture, correct shutter speed for the result you want. Leaving you with a good canvas to work on in Post Processing. Even things like composing with the knowledge you are going to crop the final result but already knowing where your cropping points will be, would be getting it right in camera.

It is about planning, visualising what you want, and starting with a good base 'canvas'. This is were being a photographer comes into what we do, with our digital art skills taking over once we get the image onto the computer.

Getting it right, means getting it right for me, for the photograph I want, for the result I want. Yep it is about Me Me Me.

[jim]

Getting it right, means getting it right for me, for the photograph I want, for the result I want. Yep it is about Me Me Me.

This.

[neil70]

Getting it right in the camera to me is the amount of time post processing (developing) that i have to do to be happy with the shot. As said above getting it technically and ashteticly pleasing with minimal developing.

[bitsnpieces]

For me, getting it right is as what Rick said, in having proper exposure, composition, iso, shutter speed, depth of field, colour, etc.

I feel that as we practice taking photos and get better and better at it, knowing our environments, situations, and what the correct framing and compositions are like, it's like what MissionMan says - far easier, and may I add, quicker, in the future.
You go in, bang, out - perfect shot, or at least to say, almost the perfect shot.

Post processing for me is just to touch up - oh, slightly underexposed, brighten up a little. Oh, slightly wide, tighten up. Oh, maybe portrait looks better - yep, crop it, etc. I try to do as little PP as possible as for me, it's time consuming.

Also, getting the wrong shutter speed and having the blur I don't want, PP isn't going to fix that. Getting something too dark and trying to brighten it up, it reduces some of the image quality and noise reduction isn't perfect - you still lose something. Artificially adding the blur/bokeh, etc, it's just time consuming, even if being pro at it, compared to getting it right on the spot.

To me, getting it right is very much like the old days of film, where you get it right - there's no fixing. I enjoy that challenge and learning curve, even if I'm slow at it, it's much more fun than sitting on a computer, for me at least.

But ultimately, getting it right for me, is whether I like the shot or not. Even if it doesn't follow the rules, even if it is a little too dark or bright, or doesn't have the effects I want, do I like the photo? Do I feel something from it (a story? a scene? a meaning?). That to me is getting it right.
You can do it all perfectly, but if the person thinks it looks boring, was the picture right then?

[Langers]

I have to agree with BitsNpieces and Rick, I don't have the time to spend forever pp so just being able to give it a little touch up and be happy with the end result is what I am chasing in camera.

[Mark L]

For me 'getting it right in camera' means correct focus, correct exposure, correct composition, correct ISO, correct aperture, correct shutter speed for the result you want. Leaving you with a good canvas to work on in Post Processing.

does it for me.
And I still don't have an affinity with PPing.
The more I play with digital, the more I learn the value of it though.
Do you want the power of you cameras processor or the power of a desktop to sharpen your photo ( and I've found all my photos benefit with some sharpening).

The question for me,
is getting it right in PP.

[snappysi]

For me, most of my work is heavily composed to fit into an idea that i have before i even pick up the camera. i do composites and nearly always have an image beeing composed of several shots that go into the final product. As far as getting it right in camera, some of my shots may not be individually correct on there own, but they may be correct for the final image. As Rick said above, getting it right for the photograph is spot on. As an example i may take an image of a girl and using the white balance make it unusually blue. By itself you would instantly say "that's too blue", however considering its going to be used in an underwater image, it is the perfect starting point.

Simon.

[Glenda]

I always aim to get it as 'right' as possible in camera but it certainly doesn't always work. I also enjoy learning about and practising PP with the various tools available. I have no problem with people doing as much PP as they are comfortable with and it constantly amazes me what experienced photogs can achieve in this area. You always have to have a good base to start with, no amount of PP will rescue a truly bad image.

[ameerat42]

Ta all. I've been reading the replies and trying to form ideas.
Am.

[Steve Axford]

Interesting post as it is one that gets a lot of argument, and it really shouldn't.
I think "getting it right in the camera" has 3 components.

1. Getting the right shot.
This involves:
timing - catching the moment. This moment may be the right season or day for a landscape or the right microsecond for an action shot.
light - getting the right light, either natural or artificial
position - where is the camera relative to the subject, how big are things relative to each other, etc, etc. This connects to using the right gear..

2. Using the right gear.
Using the right camera. Size, format, etc. This is, of course, limited by what you have but it may prompt you to try for different camera options.
Using the right lens.

3. Using the right settings
Focus
Aperture
Shutter speed
ISO
Colour (for jpeg only. In RAW it can be set in PP)

Then we can add the post processing which involves things like:
Final cropping
Colour (RAW mainly but small adjustments work in jpeg)
Cloning
Toning
Sharpening
HDR, Focus stacking etc. HDR can be done in camera, but it is generally not as good.
Perspective and lens correction (some lens correction is best done in-camera)
Any artistic stuff you want to add. eg, combining images

Some of these post processing tasks can be done in camera, but most are best done in PP. Things like cloning are best done in camera (by making sure unwanted things are not in the frame), but this isn't always possible. My opinion is keep it to a bare minimum.

I will have missed some points, but I'm sure you get the idea.

If you move out from still photography into moving pictures you will add time, which isn't just another factor like sharpening, it is a whole new dimension. Then you might add sound as well - another new dimension.

[ameerat42]

It sounds fairly comprehensive, Steve.

[wmphoto]

Getting right in camera is about time. Click, change settings, click, change settings, repeat.... This just doesn't work for me. I need to be able to take the minimal amount of shots in the shortest possible time. I then don't need to spend hours on PP. If I can get it right in camera the first time I can get through more shoots in a day which means more money. But this is from a business perspective. If it's my "personal" work then time isn't critical and I'm happy to spend more time on PP but it must still be reasonably "right" to start with. As the saying goes - you can't polish a turd.

[ameerat42]

OK, so far the consensus seems to be that there are some basic things that you do "in camera"
and some things that can be done in PP that you cannot get done with just the camera.

The important rider is that not every shot requires (much) PP but there are some images that depend on it.
I mean the type snappysi talks about above.

And lastly, you cannot rely on just PP to fix a bad photo. Oh, you can get an image if one is really needed,
but, as Warren (wmphoto) put it, no amount of "polishing filter" can turn waste into a polished object.

Epilog: I'm glad to see that the discussion has not been one that just plummeted into two separate camps of
PP vs "in-camera".

Ta to all, Am. (But continue if you wish.)

[MissionMan]

OK, so far the consensus seems to be that there are some basic things that you do "in camera"
and some things that can be done in PP that you cannot get done with just the camera.

The important rider is that not every shot requires (much) PP but there are some images that depend on it.
I mean the type snappysi talks about above.

And lastly, you cannot rely on just PP to fix a bad photo. Oh, you can get an image if one is really needed,
but, as Warren (wmphoto) put it, no amount of "polishing filter" can turn waste into a polished object.

Epilog: I'm glad to see that the discussion has not been one that just plummeted into two separate camps of
PP vs "in-camera".

Ta to all, Am. (But continue if you wish.)

The short answer is you try to get what you can in camera and avoid unnecessary PP, but there will always be photos that can benefit from PP or cropping because photography involves something unpredictable...the actions of others which may not be under your control. If you get it slightly wrong, do you throw the picture or PP to fix? The example of in camera vs PP could be looked at when I take photos of my kids.

When I look to take some photos of my kids the first thing I do is look at the room, try to understand the best background and then remove any distractions from the room. I.e. pictures on walls, clocks, table ornaments etc, because these add distractions to the room that can be avoided by the right preparation. By removing these objects, you remove the requirement to photoshop them out later. These things I can control because they are under my control.

From there, it comes down to how you position yourself for the photo taking into account the natural light, whether you lie down to get their perspective or whether you take a photo from above for a particular look at feel.

Even if you get all of that right, you still have to consider the lack of predictability of young children, and fact that they will react in a completely unexpected way to a particular set of circumstances.

Obviously, this example is completely different to a wedding where for posed photos, people will follow your instructions and you can control the outcome, but not every circumstance is the same and not every photo has the same possibilities.

And then there is luck. I remember seeing an amazing photo of an aerial display and the photographer was quite open. He wasn't expecting the aerial display to start that early so he had been doing pre aerial photos and suddenly the jets came over. He took a photo with the wrong lens and settings but the outcome was amazing.

[ameerat42]

Ta MM. (Boy, then what's the long answer)

[arthurking83]

..... (Boy, then what's the long answer)

I got one .. but (luckily for everyone)my fingers are still too frozen to put it in type!

[ameerat42]

Take some time and marshall your THAWts, AK