"Getting it right in the camera."

[I @ M]

My personal summary is that you do everything that you possibly can to have an image composed and exposed in the camera ---- just before you set to with the 'puter to polish it to the presentable stage.

[Mark L]

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

SOOC = So Oh Oh Cold.

[dtmateojr]

For me, getting it right in camera requires that I already have an idea of how the final image will come out. This might involve intentionally underexposing the shot to save the highlights knowing that I can push the shadows later on in PP. Sometimes I intentionally compose with everything in the middle of the frame because I wanted a 3x1 pano crop later.

There are times when the conditions are ideal and I just shoot in jpeg and be done with it.

[Mark L]

......
There are times when the conditions are ideal and I just shoot in jpeg and be done with it.

So you have predetermined how your camera gets it right? We can do that!!
So is it the camera getting it right, or what we've told the camera how to get it right?

[dtmateojr]

So you have predetermined how your camera gets it right? We can do that!!
So is it the camera getting it right, or what we've told the camera how to get it right?

Why not? That's what the LCD is for. No different to shooting with slide film.

[I @ M]

So you have predetermined how your camera gets it right? We can do that!!
So is it the camera getting it right, or what we've told the camera how to get it right?

Mark, if one wants to photograph in jpeg and knows the way their camera treats the images with regard to exposure, colour hues and contrast then they can create an image using their knowledge of the camera's behaviour by adjusting it accordingly.
Some cameras tend to consistently over expose and other makes / models may go the other way. Then you will find the colour and contrast differences between camera brands or even models by he same maker as well as the way that different lenses render those details.
By using that knowledge and telling the camera what to do a photographer is simply bypassing the editing at the computer on the desk stage and producing what they want to see.

Perfectly valid way of making an image to me just as photographing in raw and processing later is equally a valid way to create an image.

[arthurking83]

Agreed!

To me the only real reason you want to shoot raw, is that you have a bit of insurance.
Insurance in at least a couple of ways.
1. if you decide to change your mind later in processing terms, you have greater leeway with the raw.

2. you have a real image file. Something that can't be created from within a computer.
Because you don't normally share them, in effect they can be considered as an unofficial proof of copyright.

But for all intents and purposes, you could easily shoot in jpg and get it right in camera easily. The trick is to know the tricks on how too.

Of course, the future is everything, and what we perceive as 'right in camera' now will probably have a totally new meaning in a few years time.

[dtmateojr]

Post processing needs to be seriously considered. If you have the PP skills then shoot raw. I'm not good with PP and most of the time I just try to reproduce what I saw in the LCD when I took the shot. Might as well shoot in jpeg. I'm not ashamed to admit that I love using built-in camera effects as well. They are fun to use.

Pros have been getting it right in camera when they shot with slide film. A jpeg image has more than double the latitude of slide.

[Dug]

It used to be that "getting it right in the camera" meant an image coming from the camera that is the best exposure for the subject and minimal or no cropping was required because that had been fully considered when composing to take the picture.

There are many who still find this the most satisfying approach even in the digital age.
I think the expression is still most commonly used to describe this way of taking a picture.

Now we have RAW files and powerful editing software's that give the phrase a slightly different meaning.
Getting it right in the camera can be better described for these purposes as "getting the best information to work with" and for stitching images and those where corrections to perspective and distortion are planned, getting sufficient information becomes the priority also.

Two schools of thought, both equally valid.

I would argue that the second approach is the one that in the end result can if done right get the most from the camera, even though the expression "getting it right in the camera" in the traditional approach sense is the catch cry used also for getting the most from the camera.

For film the traditional approach wins hands down, but then again is adjusting the exposure of a film with push processing of the film's development later any different to exposing for the best histogram in digital. They both get the planned result post camera.

[Mark L]

Pros have been getting it right in camera when they shot with slide film.

Or pros have been getting it right in the darkroom. Film had to be processed!!

[dtmateojr]

Or pros have been getting it right in the darkroom. Film had to be processed!!

Not SLIDE film.

[ricktas]

Not SLIDE film.

HUH? the most common transparency processing was E-6 and used either a 6 bath or 3 bath method. Yes there are ways to do this outside a physical dark-room, using a series of containers, but it still needed processing and the photographer could use techniques to 'edit' the film during the processing stage. Your post could be misleading to anyone who wanted to get into processing transparencies.

[dtmateojr]

HUH? the most common transparency processing was E-6 and used either a 6 bath or 3 bath method. Yes there are ways to do this outside a physical dark-room, using a series of containers, but it still needed processing and the photographer could use techniques to 'edit' the film during the processing stage. Your post could be misleading to anyone who wanted to get into processing transparencies.

I think he was misleading others into thinking that developing is the same as post processing. It's not.

The reason why Kodachrome got discontinued was that there was only ONE lab left that was capable of processing it. Same thing goes with any other E-6. You normally send them to a lab, amateur or pro alike.

Darkroom "activities" is associated with printing. Developing, OTOH, is pretty much a standard procedure unless you push or pull, the equivalent of which is increasing/decreasing ISO in a digital camera. Developing can be done outside a darkroom. There is nothing much involved in developing film. The digital equivalent of developing film is clicking the shutter.

The film equivalent of photoshopping is darkroom printing. You don't really "print" slide film. You are meant to project it or view it on a light table. You send your only copy of a mounted slide to magazines or photo stock NOT prints.

Negative film is different. You had to print them. This is when you do "post processing".

NOT slide film.

[ricktas]

No, Pressing the shutter button on a digital or film camera is the same. Processing film is NOT the same as pressing a shutter button.

Then you have a captured image (in both cases) that needs processing, whether that be darkroom, computer, or tanks, this is still the processing stage.

Then you have printing, which you can do with film, of any sort, and digital.

Three stages, capture, process, print!

[dtmateojr]

In a camera, the sensor captures the photons, the CPU processes the raw data and convert to jpeg, then you print (hopefully). The first two stages are all done in camera which is the film equiv of clicking and developing. Photoshopping (darkroom printing) is not required.

[dtmateojr]

Another example: polaroid film. That's the closest equivalent to digital photography. You do not darkroom process a polaroid capture.

[ricktas]

In a camera, the sensor captures the photons, the CPU processes the raw data and convert to jpeg, then you print (hopefully). The first two stages are all done in camera which is the film equiv of clicking and developing. Photoshopping (darkroom printing) is not required.

If YOU capture with jpeg in-camera, fair enough, but what decent photographer does that?

[dtmateojr]

If YOU capture with jpeg in-camera, fair enough, but what decent photographer does that?

Me. Modesty aside, I think I make better jpeg shots than a lot of photographers who shoot raw.

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/...raw-revisited/

[ricktas]

Me. Modesty aside, I think I make better jpeg shots than a lot of photographers who shoot raw.

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/...raw-revisited/

The resolution of film is about equivelent to a 50MP full frame camera. Why shoot in jpg and lose a heap of that resolution? I shake my head at comparing a JPG to film. Sorry, but you have lost me entirely by comparing film to jpg. If you shoot jpg fair enough, your choice, but no way I or most other photographers would. Just cause you wrote an article on JPG v RAW does not mean your opinion on it, is the correct one, it is just your opinion. I am moving on from this discussion.

[I @ M]

In a camera, the sensor captures the photons, the CPU processes the raw data and convert to jpeg, then you print (hopefully). The first two stages are all done in camera which is the film equiv of clicking and developing. Photoshopping (darkroom printing) is not required.

Sorry Demo but the cpu in my camera doesn't convert the raw data to a jpeg format ( unless I ask it to ) as I prefer develop that data in a developing tank full of switches wires and silicon bits in my little dark room ----

From the mostly vacant recesses of my tiny brain I distinctly remember watching the development of slide film 40 odd years ago and noting the fact that altering chemical ratios or development bath temperatures resulted in colour shifts etc.

To me that sounds awfully like manipulation of raw data at the time of development whether it be a digital file or a strip of plastic.