# Getting it right in camera, or ....



## robbins.photo (Jan 9, 2017)

Ok, got to thinking about this today.  I see a lot of folks talking about "getting it right on camera", meaning of course getting the shot to the look as close to the final product as they can with minimal editing.

It seems to be a point of pride with many, a goal to which they aspire.  I gave it some thought and realized, nope, not how I shoot.

I could very well be in the minority here, but for what I shoot getting it "on camera" is more important than getting it "right" on camera.  When I shoot I'm usually shooting at something moving or something that could start moving at any given moment.  For this and other reasons, such as the fact that I'm often working with some rather cluttered backgrounds, I generally shoot wide intentionally.

I don't focus on composition on camera, I just want enough room to make recomposing in post possible.  At least for what I do I find it gives me the best final results, being able to decide in post how I want to frame things, what is going to lead to the best final result with the least amount of distractions in the background, etc...

So I'm kind of interested to hear from other folks there thoughts and opinions of "getting it right on camera".  No right or wrong answers of course, just curious as to other peoples thoughts on the subject.


----------



## goooner (Jan 9, 2017)

I agree, when I take landscapes or architecture I try and get it right in camera, but leaving a little so that I can straighten without losing too much. 9 times out of 10 I don't have to straighten, but having to straighten and losing something important really bugs me. With wildlife and birds I often shoot a little wider, often not by choice, but because of reach limitations. I got my 1st raptor shot last week with my 600mm and clipped the tail, am still pi$$ed about that.


----------



## Overread (Jan 9, 2017)

Getting it right in camera is about teaching a way of thinking for the person learning (hence why it comes up here  a lot as we have a lot of learners) so that they develop the right approach to photography. Or at least the approach that most consider to be the most beneficial in the long run - that is learning to compose and capture the best possible shot within the constraints of the moment so as to minimise their editing stages later.


This doesn't always mean that the shot is perfect in camera; indeed for many situations its very difficult (esp without YEARS of practice and experience) to get it perfect. But what you do is you get it as close as you can.

You speak that you don't get it perfect in camera; but I'm betting even on the fast shots you aim to get the exposure as good as you can get; you aim to get the shutter speed fast enough to freeze the motion (or blur it if that's what you wish); that you aim to not underexpose and incure undue noise and you speak of how you aim to capture the motion with room to crop in editing. You ARE getting it right in camera - you are working within the constrains of the situation to make it work for you so that when you get to the computer you have something to work with that's good. 

You are already working within the method; however you have reached a point where many of hte thoughts are no longer at the forefront of your mind; where you've shifted into a working methodology and approach that works for you. That's good; that's what we all do and i think its a healthy approach; although I would argue that for most its good to often review our method. To every so often push ourselves a little more or refresh our minds to our original process (as time goes on little things slip - we get lazy and drop doing things that we don't "have" to do and little things like that can slip up otherwise very good shots). And trying new things or a new approach is always good; teaches or reminds us good things and gives another tool in the bag to use.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 9, 2017)

For still subjects like flowers and landscapes, I don't want to have to crop so I try to frame it as I want from the start.   Sometimes that's not possible but I do like to really look at what's in the frame before I shoot.  For other things where I don't have the available light, I will purposely underexpose then bring things up in post and use noise reduction software to compensate for any high ISO shots. 

I think what you are doing works great for moving subjects as long as you have sharp enough focus and plenty of pixels to crop in when needed.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 9, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, got to thinking about this today.  I see a lot of folks talking about "getting it right on camera", meaning of course getting the shot to the look as close to the final product as they can with minimal editing.
> 
> It seems to be a point of pride with many, a goal to which they aspire.  I gave it some thought and realized, nope, not how I shoot.
> 
> ...







Your post indicates that YOU ARE interested in GETTING IT RIGHT IN CAMERA.  Getting it right as decided by you.   What else is there????


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 9, 2017)

It took a bit to soak through this hard head, but the lights finally came on. Most of this past year I was so focused on learning to use LR and PS, that I got very sloppy in camera.  My resolution for 2017 is to get it right in camera so I don't have to correct it in post. Less time on computer = more time behind the camera.


----------



## SCraig (Jan 9, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> I don't focus on composition on camera, I just want enough room to make recomposing in post possible.  At least for what I do I find it gives me the best final results, being able to decide in post how I want to frame things, what is going to lead to the best final result with the least amount of distractions in the background, etc...


Ditto.  Most of what I shoot is gone in a few seconds.  If I sit there worrying about every little nuance I might just as well leave my camera at home because I'll come back with nothing.

I try to get the exposure close, I don't care if it's perfect because I can fix it.  I use the shutter speed I want for background and foreground, and try to strike a compromise between plenty of room to crop and maintaining detail.  As long as I can fix it with editing I'm happy.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 9, 2017)

I do it both ways now.

Wildlife I set up the camera for the light and a fast moving subject. I try and leave room to crop. Animals and birds make that easy by buggering off. lol 
Sometimes I do a decent job. Other days the birds kick me in the ass and let me know I wasn't on my game. Could I have gotten any wildlife shot more right in camera. Hell ya. Train that Snowy to fly when and where I tell it and I'll kill it. Not an option so I get it as right as I can.

For studio (with my now expansive one week of experience) yes I try to get it as right in camera as possible.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 9, 2017)

I want to get them right in camera because if I can consistently, then I have a better chance of creating an image the way I want it look. If I could establish a measurable base  then I should be able to adjust in camera for what ever creative pre-vision I have for an image. 

For me, a limitation has always been the viewfinder. It's a visual thing for me. OK, so I upgraded to a D7200 with the nice viewfinder but the majority of the images are underexposed vs. the D3300, even when the camera says it is spot on. Talk about wanting to wave a white flag. So I assumed the upgrade would get me closer to my goal. NOPE, it's worse now because exposure is so inconsistent, makes me not want to use that camera. My Canon SX60HS is the most consistent camera I have but it lacks aperture, limited at f/8. So I have basically wasted thousands of dollars chasing something I didn't understand when I started. If I knew what I know now (which ain't much), I would have started (a little over year ago) with a Fujifilm X-T1 and bought three primes.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 9, 2017)

What I did start doing much better last year was to have the camera at the angle I wanted it - to eliminate rotating the image in post. I found that if I had to rotate the image it can ruin that careful in-camera framing by having something cropped off too much after the rotation.  

I would definitely leave room on BIF shots, I have way too many shots with clipped wings.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2017)

Composing a photo so that you capture the action in a split second with room to crop and giving room to ensure that you don't clip parts of the subject is still getting it right in camera. You are working with the the limits of action - sure you have to crop in editing, but you've made sure that you've got all of the subject you want in a repeatable manner that is reliable in-camera; instead of trying to compose perfectly and ending up clipping parts and missing a lot of shot because of the subject moving not where you want it to. 

Again remember getting it right in camera isn't about getting it perfect; its about getting it as close as you can practically get. It's about not being lazy and just shooting without thinking; or going into the shot with the view that mistakes will be fixed in editing etc...

I suspect most who post to forums are already trying to or do shoot to get it right in camera. Indeed I think most photographers aim to do so because its far more pleasing to see your result on the back/first thing in the computer and be happy with that moment. 

jcdeboever start a thread about that issue; you shouldn't be getting constant exposure problems with your camera; heck a dslr in auto should work as well as any point and shoot for getting proper exposure. Either something is up with the camera; or youv'e got a custom setting wrong or you've got an error in your shooting that is likely quite basic but which you're not aware of and thus can't fix. Post up some details and examples and we can see if we can work through that problem.


----------



## snowbear (Jan 10, 2017)

It's a goal, something to strive for.  On the other hand, I am a tinkerer and will probably always go in and edit every photo I decide to keep.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2017)

Getting it right in camera - expose to the right - compositional theories - exposure triangle - inverse square light fall off rate - flash ratios - etc...


----------



## zombiesniper (Jan 10, 2017)

I think this is where the disconnect is happening in this thread.
Some myself included are thinking getting it right in camera is similar to the SOOC folks which is why I said no to wildlife. The others are calling getting right in camera what I would call getting it as right as you can, which to me every photographer does.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 10, 2017)

It is "getting it as right as you can".  Sometimes that means underexposing or overexposing or spot metering off this or that, knowing that it will be easier to attain the image you previsualized, by capturing an image which looks undesirable/less-than-desirable/crappy on the LCD ... but will easily post up well, matching your mental image.

But for me, it is more than that, it is also framing.  I am striving to not crop in post.  I had attained that level of proficiency back when I was shooting news every working day.  There is generally a lot of action in news images and sports was a significant segment of a news genre.  I shot news with a get-it-right-in-the-camera, no post cropping mentality.  Even and especially the actions assignments which made getting-it-right-in-the-camera much more challenging.  When I shot news, it was back in the dinosaur days of film only.  I filed out the negative carrier so the black borders outside the negative were also printed indicating no cropping in post. If the photo required cropping or even straightening out of the horizon ... then 99 times out of 100, it got dumped.  (Occasionally an image was too good to be dumped because of a crooked horizon.)

I desire to get back to that level of proficiency.

I now give much more thought to the image I seek to capture.  I am now shooting single frame. I am waiting for the peak of action before releasing the shutter.  I am moving away from zoom to primes. I am shooting more deliberately with an anticipatory methodology, mindset and instinct rather than a reactionary approach.  Challenging myself, improving my proficiency and skills is an important element in my photographic passion.

I am shooting less frames ... but what I capture is much better.  Much better than when I was shooting Max FPS and culling down to the best.


----------



## Rick50 (Jan 10, 2017)

Very true Gary, It's about making the image rather than taking the image. A little forethought goes a long way.


----------



## ronlane (Jan 10, 2017)

Some good discussion here about this topic. As I think about it, I guess that getting it right in camera is something that I started looking hard at in December. By this, I mean being able to shoot sports images for the paper in jpeg instead of raw. That way I can quickly get the images to them and not have to spend as much time processing images that aren't paying me a lot of money. That way I can focus on other things.

The issue that I am finding really hard about this entire process for me is that even if I get an image that I feel is right SOOC, I still feel like I need to work on it in either LR or PS.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 10, 2017)

Very interesting to see all the different perspectives on the topic.


----------



## TonyBritton (Jan 10, 2017)

I've been on the_ "getting it right in the camera" _side of the fence for quite some time now. Works just fine for my photography interests.

Tony

tonybritton

Favorite Canon SX50 HS Photographs - Tony Britton


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 10, 2017)

PS-  For me, it is a slippery slope once I easily accept correcting my errors in post.  It makes an already lazy person even more lazy.  Once I tell myself don't worry about that telephone pole, just center the needle on the light meter, the horizon doesn't matter, et cetera ... then I get lazy on other stuff, composition, the quality of light, direction of light and shadows, telling the story to its fullest, et al.  My goal is to capture the exceptional photo, not the good or average image.  For me, capturing the exceptional image require attention to detail at every step including post.  But once I start cutting corners in the field, knowing I can fix it in post, my photographic skill level drops and my eye become less keen and I shoot reacting to the story instead of anticipating how the story will be unfolding and where I need to be and how best I should adjust the camera to capture my anticipated image.  There is a difference between a photographer and a digital artist.

But this is me.  We all see and shoot differently.  I imagine most/all/some of you are not as lazy as I and are able to grow and increase your photographic skills while not getting it right in the camera.  And I salute you.  It is not a slippery slope for you.  But for me, working on getting-it-right-in-the-camera is a challenge that I use to increase my photographic skills and not my post production image manipulation skills.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 10, 2017)

Overread said:


> Composing a photo so that you capture the action in a split second with room to crop and giving room to ensure that you don't clip parts of the subject is still getting it right in camera. You are working with the the limits of action - sure you have to crop in editing, but you've made sure that you've got all of the subject you want in a repeatable manner that is reliable in-camera; instead of trying to compose perfectly and ending up clipping parts and missing a lot of shot because of the subject moving not where you want it to.
> 
> Again remember getting it right in camera isn't about getting it perfect; its about getting it as close as you can practically get. It's about not being lazy and just shooting without thinking; or going into the shot with the view that mistakes will be fixed in editing etc...
> 
> ...



Thank you for the suggestion. I have been PM'ing members here on various occasion that have or are using the camera but not much resolved. As far as posting, well I have found that can be somewhat a hornet's nest for a noob like me. I did that with my Sigma 150-600 issues and it made me confused and I ended up just sending it in like I thought originally, and it was defective x 2. I suspect I have a crap D7200. I am going to really get back to basics this year and shoot mostly film, as I am pretty much over the digital experiment. At some point, I want to start to produce quality images, very disappointed with digital in general. May be I have an analog mind? Probably just ignorant. I am not impressed with the D7200 at all for getting right in camera. The meter is off by -1 to -2 stops depending. Focus is way off as well, I printed a target and well lets just say, don't get me started, because it sucks... but common sense tells me that if I have to spend two hours with each lens I own to calibrate it in the camera, then there is an issue and it ain't me... thats what Nikon customer service tells me to do (fukstiks) and use your EC, I say why? is the meter not right with the sun to my back and I am close to my subject?.... silence.....  Nobody tells you that crap in the reviews. The camera is a piece of crap. I am at a point of throwing it away, my most expensive camera and the worst of them all.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 10, 2017)

I consider 'get it right in the camera' a tool, not the goal.


----------



## Optimum Clarity (Jan 10, 2017)

robbins.photo said:


> Ok, got to thinking about this today.  I see a lot of folks talking about "getting it right on camera", meaning of course getting the shot to the look as close to the final product as they can with minimal editing.
> 
> It seems to be a point of pride with many, a goal to which they aspire.  I gave it some thought and realized, nope, not how I shoot.
> 
> ...


I think that get it right in camera is ok for some types of studio work, but it really just shows a lack of ability to do good editing. Not every photographer is an artist and sometimes getting a good documentary shot is the most important thing, in those cases getting it right in the camera is a must.
Shooting high resolution video works for some things as well because it lets you find the frame for the content you want and then be able to crop for composition and still get a good resolution print from it.

I used to see a lot of photos labeled as SOOC as if that was a good thing or a bragging point and to me it just said NVGAE (not very good at editing). But of course sometimes a document is what is needed, I like making artwork though and that takes a fair amount of editing and a high skill level.


----------



## Nature_Photo_Mastery (Jan 11, 2017)

Lots of really good input on this one so far.

My approach to capturing images is dependent upon the goals I have.

My position on this is that I'll do whatever's necessary to create the image I want. That usually means putting a tremendous amount of effort into getting the capture as good as possible in camera (more on that, below). But it also includes whatever I feel like doing in post. (more, below). So I do a combination of both, with a priority on the capture, and then backup support from editing.

Getting it right in camera, for me, means capturing the highest quality possible, from a technical standpoint as well as an artistic standpoint. For example, getting as close as possible to the subject (usually wildlife or macro...and getting close _ethically, _mind you) to avoid having to crop significantly. Less cropping means higher quality in most cases. Do I account for post processing cropping options by not always filling the frame? Sure, when appropriate or needed. It all depends on the situation. Then there are things like sharpness, shutter speed, DOF, lighting, and the list goes on. All important to me to get right in camera.

The biggest one for me, as a fine art image creator, is the clean background and lack of distractions. I'll do whatever I can in the field to get that. I'll plan for it, scout locations, decide when I should _not _shoot, move around and position myself for a clean background, lay on the ground, etc. The advantages to getting the background right in camera are: More natural looking result, higher image quality, less time spent in post processing, etc (changing or blurring a bg behind a wildlife or macro subject can often be extremely time consuming, challenging, and may not always result in a natural looking and high quality image.) To summarize, for me, getting it right in camera is about making the highest quality fine art image possible. And I often make close up portraits of birds and other detailed subjects, requiring all of these technical things to be done well in camera.

On the other hand, I'll do whatever I want in post processing to create the image I want. I create art, not documentary images. So if I did everything I could in the field, but still couldn't get everything "perfect" I will do something about it in Photoshop. The main point, which others mentioned, is that I'm using it as a _tool to polish _the best shot I could capture, _not _as a crutch to fix a lack of skill, or laziness.

It's all about knowing what I want to create and then doing what I need to in order to make it happen. That's it.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 11, 2017)

I do what's best for the situation.  Sports (speed) .. macro (dof, angle perspective on the object, etc).  portraiture.  It's all different.

When aircraft are coming 100+mph towards you, you get the shot and the priority is your focus point and shutter speed.  And making sure you get the entire plane in the shot.  You don't have much control over anything else.  That is similar to sports.  The action is moving and changing your viewing perspective.

Taking macro, portraiture, landscape .. try to get the shot as perfect as possible making sure white/bright areas have detail, etc


----------



## Rye (Jan 11, 2017)

I started doing some portraits for friends and family in my garage recently. I have some umbrellas and a couple of flashes and I bought a huge piece of white muslin fabric for a backdrop. Well the muslin has some wrinkles in it that I ironed out the best I could but some I couldn't get rid of. I figured getting the subject away from the backdrop and blurring out the wrinkles in Photoshop would be easy but I couldn't have been more wrong. They look horrible and it's a nightmare getting rid of the wrinkles without making the picture look "fake".

I think if there are problems a person is seeing when shooting and saying "thats OK I can just fix it in post" it might be worthwhile to rethink the approach. But I hate with a passion having to do any kind of extensive editing in Photoshop so maybe it's just me.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 11, 2017)

In my field I have the option to take my time in composing the image and grooming the set/model before taking the shot. Clothes should be pinned if they don't fit right, otherwise there will be liquifying to be done later. Clothes should be steamed otherwise I'll have to spend ridiculous amounts of time fixing it in post; the same goes for making sure the hair looks good or the makeup isn't smudged. I know that if I don't take the time to fix these and similar issues before taking the shot, I'll be forced to spend a lot more time editing it later than what it would take to "get it right in camera", just to get a result that will likely be less than ideal compared to fixing the issue before the exposure is made.  I just don't have the attention span or patience to do that much editing, so I put the work towards getting it right before the editing part. When I see people preaching "get it right in camera", I interpret it as good advice because it will save you time and work in most cases.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 11, 2017)

Rye said:


> I bought a huge piece of white muslin fabric for a backdrop. Well the muslin has some wrinkles in it that I ironed out the best I could but some I couldn't get rid of.


Have you tried using a steamer on it?


----------



## chuasam (Jan 16, 2017)

Getting it right in camera for me means nailing peak action, nailing the focus, getting my lighting the way I planned.
I can always crop but I cannot afford to lose that perfect moment while trying to frame it "perfectly."


----------



## Fred von den Berg (Jan 16, 2017)

When shooting  film, especially slide, I try to  get as much right in camera as I possibly can. With digital this is not as important but I still make an effort because it makes for better options in post the more I nail in camera.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 20, 2017)

The better you can get it in camera, the easier the post process.


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 2, 2017)

What is the reason for getting it right in camera? Is it possible that there are multiple and different reasons?

It could be that getting it captured and close enough to then enable post-processing is the only need.

It could be that getting right in camera is about efficiency and reducing the cost (and time) spent in post-processing.

In my case, I enjoy the process of taking a picture just as much (and sometimes even more) than the picture itself. Sometimes I've gone through lots of setup to take a picture (and then tweaking to shoot it again), and been satisfied with the picture *on the back monitor*. I've even deleted that final picture with no regrets, because my only purpose was to take the picture (and not caring about keeping it).


----------



## ronlane (Feb 2, 2017)

dasmith232 said:


> What is the reason for getting it right in camera? Is it possible that there are multiple and different reasons?
> 
> It could be that getting it captured and close enough to then enable post-processing is the only need.
> 
> ...



Sure there are plenty of times that I like to just play with images in post processing. As a creative thing.

However, in my thought process getting it "right" in camera would be getting the maximum amount of data to work with. By that I mean, getting the WB as close to correct as possible, getting the exposure correct so that you don't blow out highlights or crush the black detail. I guess it would be also about getting as much dynamic range as possible out of your given camera.

For me shooting sports for the local paper it is about getting good images straight out of the camera so that I don't have to spend as much time in post to get them images. I have started working with the sports editor to get an image on social media at half time of both the girls and boys basketball games.


----------

