# Get it right in the camera!



## fmw (Apr 7, 2016)

We have some amazing photographic editors that provide the ability fix an image to look like we want it to.   The point I'm going to make here is that you need to get it right in the camera if you want make the most of your post production effort with your editor.  I gathered up some inexpensive amateur equipment and made some shots of the outdoor thermometer in my back yard to drive the point home.  So that you know, the shots were made with a very inexpensive Nikon 55-200 f3.5-5.6 zoom lens and a Nikon D7000 camera.  To start here is a shot of the thermometer taken at the 55mm setting on the lens.







What you see is what the camera produced without any editing.  The subject (you can see it hanging from the tree) is well focused and well exposed.  So let's crop down the image to include just the thermometer.  Here is result with the image enlarged to around the size of the original photograph.






We were able to make an accurate shot of the overall image but there isn't much resolution in the thermometer itself.  There is nothing we can do in post process to fix this.  It is just short of pixels.
The next shot zooms the lens out to its maximum focal length of 200mm and even adds a cheap 1.4X teleconverter behind the lens.






The shot was made from the same location from the same tripod but you can see we have enlarged the thermometer quite a bit.

Now the thermometer cropped just like the image above is easy to see and can go to post production for final editing.






You can't put lipstick on a pig as they say or garbage in, garbage out.  We want to envision how we want our final image to look before we fire the shutter.  Use the equipment and technique you need to use to get as close to that as you can with your original composition and then fire the shutter.  Get it right in the camera in the first place.


----------



## sscarmack (Apr 7, 2016)

Photos aren't showing...


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2016)

images broken


----------



## fmw (Apr 7, 2016)

Sorry my images didn't appear and I can't find a way to delete the text.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 7, 2016)

I wish I was that perfect to get it right in the camera in the first place all the time. 
I guess the percentage would be much much better if I was staging things.


----------



## dennybeall (Apr 7, 2016)

Very good point for the Beginners thread Fred but for many of us here you're preaching to the choir.  I don't think there are many that just take bad photos for the fun of Photoshop, although I have searched out some old damaged ones just for the fun of fixing them up in Photoshop.
The trick (technique, workflow, whatever) is to be able to balance the trouble needed to get the shot right in the first place against the amount of work required in post processing. That assumes of course that the photographer in question knows what to do to get it right and what would be required in Photoshop to fix it.
Many fun subjects involved in this.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 7, 2016)

I try my best to get in right In camera but doesn't always work out.Especially being a wildlife shooter with uncontrolled lighting and weather conditions I do make the adjustments on the fly but not all work out.


----------



## fmw (Apr 7, 2016)

It isn't always possible to get it right in the camera but the point is you will get better images if you can and do.  I moved the images to another website and fixed the permissions.  The problem was completely mine.


----------



## fmw (Apr 7, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I try my best to get in right In camera but doesn't always work out.Especially being a wildlife shooter with uncontrolled lighting and weather conditions I do make the adjustments on the fly but not all work out.



I think you do quite a bit to get it right in the camera without even thinking about it.  You have an idea of what you are after, you mount the right lens and put yourself in the right position to get what you want and set the camera to get the results you want.  You do this without even thinking about it.  If the subject fails to cooperate then you don't get what you wanted but you might have.  Without the preparation you probably wouldn't have achieved anything.  None of us get them all but we improve our success ratio because we think things through.  That is really all I wanted to convey to beginners.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 7, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> I wish I was that perfect to get it right in the camera in the first place all the time.
> I guess the percentage would be much much better if I was staging things.


Unless you're a journalist, there's nothing wrong with staging a shot.


----------



## fmw (Apr 7, 2016)

dennybeall said:


> Very good point for the Beginners thread Fred but for many of us here you're preaching to the choir.  I don't think there are many that just take bad photos for the fun of Photoshop, although I have searched out some old damaged ones just for the fun of fixing them up in Photoshop.
> The trick (technique, workflow, whatever) is to be able to balance the trouble needed to get the shot right in the first place against the amount of work required in post processing. That assumes of course that the photographer in question knows what to do to get it right and what would be required in Photoshop to fix it.
> Many fun subjects involved in this.



Yes it was aimed at beginners, not the choir.   I always take the time to get it right in the camera.  I want to do as little editing as I can.  I can always wreck a good photo in Photoshop but I can't fix a bad one from the camera.  My example above was extreme but I hope it made the point.


----------



## jcdeboever (Apr 7, 2016)

I wish I knew what was right in camera to begin with...[emoji31] 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 7, 2016)

chuasam said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I was that perfect to get it right in the camera in the first place all the time.
> ...



I shoot mostly wildlife/birds but I understand what the op is getting at.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 7, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > JacaRanda said:
> ...


Most insect photos are staged.


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 7, 2016)

I love to stage some snowy owl shots ones that are still breathing.Does anyone no where to find one that listens to direction while I get my focus and exposure set just right in camera.No flight required but most be willing to stay still.Live Mice Rewards offered In exchange.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 7, 2016)

Sometimes there is no 'right' in the camera so we must settle for as 'good as we can get'.
This is most obvious when the dynamic range doesn't favor the perfect exposure of the most important elements.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 7, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> I wish I knew what was right in camera to begin with...[emoji31]
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk



That's easy: Content and cropped the way you want. Lit the way you want and with a shutter speed f/stop combination that renders motion and DOF the way you want at base ISO with a fully saturated sensor exposure. Compromise as necessary until it's not worth compromising any further in which case walk away.

Joe


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 7, 2016)

DarkShadow said:


> I love to stage some snowy owl shots ones that are still breathing.Does anyone no where to find one that listens to direction while I get my focus and exposure set just right in camera.No flight required but most be willing to stay still.Live Mice Rewards offered In exchange.



Have you spoken to anyone at Pixar on this, because I'm guessing they'll be your best bet...


----------



## table1349 (Apr 7, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> Sometimes there is no 'right' in the camera so we must settle for as 'good as we can get'.
> This is most obvious when the dynamic range doesn't favor the perfect exposure of the most important elements.


Sorry, I have to disagree with your hypothesis.  If you get it as "good as you can get" in camera then you got it "right" in the camera. 
Just shooting it more or less as good as you can get it and figuring you can fix it in post processing is the lazy way to mediocre shots.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 7, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes there is no 'right' in the camera so we must settle for as 'good as we can get'.
> ...



How can you get it better than 'as good as you can get ' in camera?


----------



## table1349 (Apr 7, 2016)

JacaRanda said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > The_Traveler said:
> ...


With this..............







If you like insert the words "kinda, sorta right" for "more or less" if you like.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 7, 2016)

I get it the way I need it to be in the camera, and most of the time that is not right in the camera but perfect for post process.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 7, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> I get it the way I need it to be in the camera, and most of the time that is not right in the camera but perfect for post process.



That's illogical.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 7, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> That's illogical.
> 
> Joe



That's because I don't follow what people say on the Internet, but rather my own working experience.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 7, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I get it the way I need it to be in the camera, and most of the time that is not right in the camera but perfect for post process.
> ...



How is it illogical to shoot for post?


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 7, 2016)

I'm just reading back through this trying to figure out how this became a controversial topic of debate.  Weird

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Apr 7, 2016)

It's all about the end result. Who the hell cares how you get there. Potato Potato, ...well I guess that doesn't work on the Internet.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 8, 2016)

Uh-hu.

One _cant _get it right in camera.

One can get the correct focus and the correct exposure, with the correct shutter speed/aperture/sensor speed. And one might set correct white balance, though the automatic white balance of many cameras is pretty good and this can be fixed in post with no loss whatsoever.

But for example if you want absolutely correct colors, you'll need a color checker like utility. One simply doesnt have the controls on the camera to get that one right in camera.

And any advanced editing is also not possible in camera.

What you can do is get a good data base for the picture, and in many cases you can get it sufficiently right in camera, for your needs. But getting it actually right isnt possible.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2016)

One reason that this discussion can get a little dramatic and argumentative is because we forget that getting it right in camera is highly dependant upon what we want to do with the photo. 


At its core the concept of "getting it right in camera" is all about reducing editing workflow; improving our end result and resulting in the most efficient use of our time and skill. Getting it right in camera means you've got the best possible shot given the situation you are in at the time and given your intended output. If your intended output is resized online chances are you can get it right in camera with more degree of freedom than others can if they are cropping heavily and then making enlargements. 


The lesson we want people to walk away with is to be awake when taking photos. To THINK about the photo; what they want to do with it; what they want from it. With that information it puts boundaries and criteria on the situation for the person to have some idea what "right" is for the shot. When written out it can sound like a lot of work and often it can be a lot to think about for some; in other situations its really very simple "I want a nice sharp shot; with good even exposure and no blown highlights". There that's a criteria and in the moment takes all of  a millisecond to think.

Meanwhile you might have other situations where your desires are more demanding and complex; at which point you have to work harder to get it right in camera; but the pay off is a greater reward in the quality and closeness of your final image to what you wanted.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Apr 8, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> I'm just reading back through this trying to figure out how this became a controversial topic of debate.  Weird




Oh... Hai!  You must be new to the internet.  Welcome!


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2016)

jake337 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



I didn't say it was illogical to shoot for post. It is illogical to say it's both perfect and most of the time not right at the same time.

Joe


----------



## sscarmack (Apr 8, 2016)

My style of shooting is solely done to then edit in post. To each their own.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 8, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> I wish I knew what was right in camera to begin with...[emoji31]


When you get to your 10,001 photo (in reference to his signature line), then you'll know.

maybe.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 8, 2016)

This becomes silly when people insist on specific words or specific word definitions as the 'correct' way to state how one tries to shoot.

I can't imagine that anyone says, 'well I'm going to screw this up and try to rescue it later.'
Probably what they, and I, say is 'terrible lighting, I'll expose to get everything I want into a fix-able range and be happy I got something on the sensor.'

Some kinds of shot or shooting just don't lend themselves to the kind of looking, considering, reshooting, waiting around, moving things, repositioning the tripod, coming back another day, taking a whole bunch of different shots, changing the angle of the polarizing filter or switching lenses that taking photos of flowers, landscapes, cityscapes, portraits allow.

I walk around with two camera bodies with lenses that cover the range I'll shoot, with my settings, including EC, set for what I think I'll need - and then I get a chance to shoot and expect that shot will be as good as I can get.

This allegiance to specific words and specific intent in shooting is getting religious when, imo, all that counts is the picture.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

Overread said:


> One reason that this discussion can get a little dramatic and argumentative is because we forget that getting it right in camera is highly dependant upon what we want to do with the photo.
> 
> 
> At its core the concept of "getting it right in camera" is all about reducing editing workflow; improving our end result and resulting in the most efficient use of our time and skill. Getting it right in camera means you've got the best possible shot given the situation you are in at the time and given your intended output. If your intended output is resized online chances are you can get it right in camera with more degree of freedom than others can if they are cropping heavily and then making enlargements.
> ...



Nicely said, Overread.  Those who do photography that requires fast action - sports, street, wildlife etc - actually do what I am suggesting to beginners and most do it without even thinking about it.  They do it from experience that beginners don't have.  If they didn't they wouldn't get images in the camera that would produce the best images in post production.  I'm amazed that some people don't see the benefits of getting it right in the camera.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 8, 2016)

The_Traveler said:


> This becomes silly when people insist on specific words or specific word definitions as the 'correct' way to state how one tries to shoot.
> 
> I can't imagine that anyone says, 'well I'm going to screw this up and try to rescue it later.'
> Probably what they, and I, say is 'terrible lighting, I'll expose to get everything I want into a fix-able range and be happy I got something on the sensor.'
> ...


While not quite that dramatic, if you remember a few months ago there was a thread started that was of the opposite view.  There was no reason to get it right in the camera as it could be rescued in Photoshop.  I am still waiting for my completely underexposed photo to be rescued by the OP.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 8, 2016)

So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.

And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.

I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.
> 
> And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.
> 
> I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.



How is an SOOC photo NOT post processed? Define what is done as post processing. By SOOC photo do you mean the JPEG the camera creates?

Joe


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 8, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.
> ...


define it as you like, as everyone will complain one way or another.

I shoot mostly RAW .. thus I have to convert it at some point and I use LightRoom.  And I make my adjustments.  Even when I do shoot JPEG, I still make adjustments.

I'm just curious how many people make "no adjustments" (per their own definition).


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



It's impossible to not make adjustments. No option exists to not make adjustments. Unless you're happy with your photos looking like this:




 

Joe


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 8, 2016)

chuasam said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Not the ones I shoot.  In fact, none have been, unless you count setting up a tripod/flash etc.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 8, 2016)

Firstly, I agree with everybody.

Secondly, I think all of us seasoned photogs know what Fred is talking about, except maybe James (joking), but James is so good that he can shoot blindfolded, from the hip and still hits his targets (seriously).

Thirdly, when I was shooting film, I made a point of getting it all right in the camera. Getting it right does not mean getting it perfect, but rather capturing an image which requires the least amount of post processing manipulation. When I was shooting film, I exposed specifically for how I developed and I shot for full-frame printing.  If the shot required cropping, I would dump it and print a negative that didn't require any cropping.

Unfortunately or Fortunately, manipulations with digital are much easier than with film.  With digital, I quickly got lazy and sloppy in the field knowing that I could easily fix it in post. That, for me, was a slippery slope, and pretty soon my keeper ratio skyrocketed to 75:1 and higher. I am now attempting to shoot without cropping and minimize my post time. I mainly shoot non-stationary, action type stuff in uncontrolled environments. I shoot manual and most recently I have dialed down my FPS to Single Frame (except for sports and the like). Shooting single frame is making me see and think about the image more then shooting multiple FPS.  With single frame I concentrate more on my subject waiting for the peak of action.  Shooting in an anticipatory shooting methodology with single frame rather than at 8FPS in a reactionary shooting style is improving my photographic eye and timing. Getting back to "getting it right in the camera" is improving my photography.

I shoot to capture the previsualized image. I shoot to capture the final image with as little post processing manipulations as possible.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2016)

I think one other reason this subject gets heated is passionate teachers.

Most of us here are here to share our knowledge and we enjoy doing that; we enjoy seeing people progress and can't understand always when people choose to "fail" in our eyes; or rather to not reach their full potentail. As such not "getting it right in camera" is a major failing. 

I think also its a bit like spelling and writing a proper letter when applying for a job. It's not just that we expect it by some social or community standard; but its an element of caring; or being seen to care. We hate the idea of someone not being seen to care about their photography - about not wanting to get it right in camera. 

So we rebel against it; more so today because editing is SO much easier than in the past in the digital world; even though most of us know that editing is not a be-all and end all; and that good editign to fix problems takesa lot of time and skill.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 8, 2016)

Overread said:


> I think one other reason this subject gets heated is passionate teachers.


 Totally agree!  

Wondering if anyone is actively using a mentor here.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.
> ...



I would term it as production.  To me the post production is what WE do after the shutter is released, whether it is done on a computer or phone or in the camera.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 8, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Because it's not right for one process, but right another process. 

Most of my digital photos for work are way under exposed about 1 stop intentionally, where most of my film photos are at least 2 stops over intentionally.  If someone look at my RAW files, or JPEGs backup of these RAW files, they would wonder if I know what I'm doing because the photos certainly don't look right out of the camera  (this would include WB) LOL


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

> Because it's not right for one process, but right another process.
> 
> Most of my digital photos for work are way under exposed about 1 stop intentionally, where most of my film photos are at least 2 stops over intentionally.  If someone look at my RAW files, or JPEGs backup of these RAW files, they would wonder if I know what I'm doing because the photos certainly don't look right out of the camera  (this would include WB) LOL



What is the benefit of correcting a 1 stop underexposure in editing rather than during exposure?


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 8, 2016)

fmw said:


> What is the benefit of correcting a 1 stop underexposure in editing rather than during exposure?



Highlights retention...

This was shot at least 3 stops under exposed







This was shot about 2 stops under exposed





This was shot about 3 stops under exposed





This was shot with multiple strobes but still about 2 stops under exposed.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2016)

Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 8, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> Firstly, I agree with everybody.



Bold stance Gary..   lol


----------



## Stradawhovious (Apr 8, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> Firstly, I agree with everybody.




I disagree with you.






PARADOX!!!!!


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 8, 2016)

Overread said:


> Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.



Thanks.  Whatever you call it, my digital photos are rarely "right" in the camera, intentionally.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 8, 2016)

People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Apr 8, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> So the question begs .. how many people do Post Production on their SOOC good images.
> 
> And when talking about film, what is considered Post Production/modification of the captured image.
> 
> I know I always do some PP as mentioned before for some WB/Color adjustments and cropping.


M


I like to think I only do post to my "good" pics. The others are deleted hopefully before they get to the computer as I dont want to look at " not good" photos.

I skipped mucb of this thread but sill go back Nd look as its rather amusing.

To the OP, why not just walk closer to the thermometer? Get it right in camera lol. You cropped it kinda defeates the thesis.

I do not imagine many beginners Re going to find this post or this thread in general helpful.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Apr 8, 2016)

All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2016)

chuasam said:


> People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.



Technical proficiency must come before artistic development can be fully realised. 

Give it 20 years and some of those "boring" photographers will have honed their skills and be producing some outstanding photography. And sometimes its being produced right now; only the vast volumes we are exposed to daily - hourly - by the moment - overwhelms us.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.



What?  You don't like thermometers?


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Vtech I'd argue that that isn't so much "under" exposure but really respecting the fact that you've a need to bias the meter reading against the scene you're set with. Either knowing that you'll brighten the foreground in editing or through flash (which the meter can't account for) or also through HDR methods.
> ...



If they are what you intended then they were right in the camera, right?


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 8, 2016)

fmw said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



That was my point.

Joe


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Apr 8, 2016)

fmw said:


> crzyfotopeeple said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk begs the question, should you ever really take a picture of a thermometer in the first place. I'm still not clear on that.
> ...


I'm frightened by large ones.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 8, 2016)

Then let me be blunt and clearly define "right in camera" since I don't see it in this thread.  "Right in camera"  means whatever the intention of the photographer for the image to be.  To be honest, I don't think some of you could clearly define it until I brought it up.  It's that simple, no need to be long winded and vague.  

You're welcome!


----------



## zombiesniper (Apr 9, 2016)

chuasam said:


> People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.



Someones been on my flickr again.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 9, 2016)

Overread said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > People get so obsessed and hung up with a photo being sharp and perfectly exposed that we get an endless flow of perfectly shot boredom.
> ...


I would rather see artistic skill than technical proficiency.


----------



## Overread (Apr 9, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



I see very few quality artists who are not proficient technically. 

This doesn't mean they can all name every aperture value in 1/3rd increments up to f32 nor can they outline the physics behind how a lens works - it means they can control the camera and use it to achieve their end result. 

An artist cannot create if they do not have the tools to create with nor the proficiency to control and use those tools


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 9, 2016)

Overread said:


> An artist cannot create if they do not have the tools to create with nor the proficiency to control and use those tools



I totally agree.

However, most people emphasize WAY too much on the tools, and the knowledge of the tools,  rather than how to apply that knowledge creatively.   Creatively is the key IMHO.  Sure I can be a walking encyclopedia of cameras and lenses, but my pictures can still be bland and boring.  This is most often when you hear someone talk a lot of about the technical aspect of photography, then to see such a dated and boring portfolio.


----------



## Overread (Apr 9, 2016)

That is a weakness of the internet; many of us are more technical than artistically inspired and photography sites have a huge problem encouraging and promoting artistic discussion. Partly we are limited by the literature too; much of the common material only speaks over "rule of 3rds" and little else if perhaps a few about lines or eye direction. 

in short there's a black hole. 


On This forum its also promoted by the fact that we get a lot of newbies who are very new to the hobby ; these people who are in the most need of getting their basics in technical control over the camera before they can even become discover their artist within


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 9, 2016)

I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 9, 2016)

Gary A. said:


> I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.



IMHO, every photograph is flawed in someway.  I'd rather have an emotionally beautiful but technically imperfect photo than a technically perfect but boring photo, if I have to pick one.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 9, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather see a photo that is creatively/artistically captured and technically perfect than one which is creative but lacks in photographic proficiency.
> ...


I'd rather look at blurry photos from Robert Cape than sharp clear images from Bern and Hilda Becher.  Stuff by Ellen von Unwerth over whoever shoots Sears catalogues. 

People hire photographers for their visual skills and ability to communicate in a image. People don't hire the photographer with the most in focus image.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2016)

New Craigs list ad:  Wanted Photographer with outstanding one in a million artistic vision.  Ability to focus camera not necessary.  Please send sample photos, in focus or not to...........

I can soften the focus of an image in post processing to make it how I like it.  You just can't take an out of focus image and sharpen it.  

Call me a traditionalist, but this just doesn't cut it for me.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 9, 2016)

I shoot for both. Granted, 'perfect' wasn't the best choice of words for the internet, as many would rather argue semantics than concept. So, for the internet's sake, I prefer an artistic/creative vision combined with superior, (better than average), photographic technical proficiency.

That is what I strive for, combining creative vision with ph0tographic skill. If/when I fail on either count, my failure becomes fuel for me to try harder next time.

I have nothing against unsharp or overly dark or overly light images ... If that was the intent of the photog prior to releasing the shutter. Getting lucky, may work for the hobbyist but not for the pro.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 9, 2016)

For Internet sake, if I have to pick one technical or creative I would pick creative.  It took me 1 day to nail perfect focus of a motorcycle going 150mph.  It will take me a life time to create a style, a unique vision.   The digital age has reduced the learning curve drastically.  A lot of times, the difference is in the creativity.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 9, 2016)

For Internet sake, Why pick one ... go for both. (They are not mutually exclusive.)


----------



## dennybeall (Apr 9, 2016)

Interesting discussion. Camera hobbyists vs photographic artists vs I'm not sure who. Some good points made by all.


----------



## DanOstergren (Apr 10, 2016)

I generally try to get it "right" during the exposure because retouching puts me to sleep. You can use your lighting or makeup to "dodge and burn" and sculpt your subject in certain ways and even out skin tones, saving you time in post, and you can spend a tiny bit of extra time grooming your location and making sure the details are right and distractions are eliminated, and a tiny bit of extra time to make sure your exposure is the way you want it, and then when it comes to post you can get through more photos a lot faster because each photo doesn't take so long to edit.

 Unfortunately I've only ever taken a handful of shots that I felt needed zero post-editing, but as I get more experienced I hope this number increases, because I'm way too tired of a person to be retouching all the time. Perhaps one day I'll just be able to hire a retoucher, and then I'll be able to say that I don't retouch a single one of my photos.  

Of course, this applies mainly to portrait photographers, or photographers who have a little bit of time to consider the details before creating the photo.


----------



## dennybeall (Apr 10, 2016)

Many of us rarely, if ever, do work in a studio or a place that we control.. It's a very different challenge to get it right in camera when the wind is blowing and people are moving around and the clouds are coming and going changing the light. The power company is usually adverse to taking down a 15kv line so I can get a clear shot of a valley.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 10, 2016)

The subject matters far more than the nitty little details. I've said this before : I'd rather have one slightly blurry, poorly exposed and badly composed image of Jesus Christ than a thousand perfectly shot images of the sunset. 

And I am not one bit religious.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 10, 2016)

chuasam said:


> The subject matters far more than the nitty little details. I've said this before : I'd rather have one slightly blurry, poorly exposed and badly composed image of Jesus Christ than a thousand perfectly shot images of the sunset.
> 
> And I am not one bit religious.


This should keep you happy all week long then.   It's already been sized to 8x10 for easy printing and display. 



 

My bill in the mail.  For such a large amount I only accept Certified checks, gold bars or the arm and leg of my choice.


----------



## Overread (Apr 10, 2016)

My dog doesn't chase her tail - so please all use your imagination to see a picture below of a husky  chasing her tail; all out of focus and suitably blurry


In short I think we are just going in circles now and mostly arguing about nit-picking and semantics and its all getting just a little silly so I think with the core of the message delivered it might be time to lock and move onto other discussions,


If anyone has a serious post of content to add that they want to make that is felt to be of importance and steering the thread back into sensible discussion please pm me to unlock.


----------

