# Get it right in camera or fix it in post?



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

I used to be a big proponent of getting it right in camera and while I still believe in most circumstances, it’s easier to shoot a photo correctly and do less post I’ve now got a different view on this with the new amazing DR of the newest generations of cameras.

This has come up because of another thread on another forum where a photographer accused people of taking a photo and fixing it in post of being lazy and saying all photos like that end up tone mapped and look like garbage anyways.

With cameras that can cleanly pull details from shadows within 4 or 5 stops of being under exposed, you have the ability to shoot a high dynamic range scene such as a person under sunny skies and fix it so that you’re not just getting a silhouette. Well, why not use strobes? This is a possibility but the other issue with that is that the equipment and the end result. Often times if the DR is too great, you’ll need a massive amount of strobe power or else you’ll still end up with a mostly underexposed scene other than your subject. The lighting can also be uneven depending on your availability to equipment. The other issue is the amount of gear and the time needed. Sometimes you have the time and ability to lug around strobes and battery power but other times if you’re shooting an event, you don’t have that luxury. A camera with a higher usable dynamic range lets you take a properly exposed sky and bring up the shadows of everything else in post to have a beautiful photo with everything properly exposed. According to some purist, this may be wrong, but I say use what tools you have to provide the best photo possible. Check out two of the examples I found in the below links.

What’s everyone’s thoughts on this point of view?

Examples:
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2949/15415572896_71ca78e586_c.jpg
http://www.slrlounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/32-Nikon-D810-Review-Images.jpg

P.S., I love my new D750 if you can’t tell.


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. By doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.

Knowing what your camera can do is very important.

As for the haters? Well I put them in the same category as those to say they only shoo tin manula mode, use natural light, only shoot raw/jpeg etc...morons.


----------



## goooner (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm pretty new to photo editing, but I say use what you have to create the photo you envisioned when taking the photograph. The DR on the D750 is the main reason I want to switch to FF, and Nikon...


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. be doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.
> 
> Knowing what your camera can do is very important.
> 
> As for the haters? Well I put them in the same category as those to say they only shoo tin manula mode, use natural light, only shoot raw/jpeg etc...morons.



The particular person who said that meant it as to properly expose the subject in camera. Also, they mentioned waiting for the right light to shoot it, which I basically ignored because when you’re working for a paying client doing portraits, weddings, etc… you can’t just put everything on hold to wait for the hour after sunrise or before sunset.


----------



## Designer (Dec 17, 2014)

I use whichever method will yield the results I want with the least amount of fussing.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 17, 2014)

What difference does it make as long as the results are what you wanted?

If I get it right in the camera, great, and I will try to do that with each shot.  If I miss then I'll fix it in post processing.  Either way works fine for me as long as the end result is what I wanted.

The days of truly "Straight Out Of Camera" ended in the early 1800's.  Since then we have always had the ability to manipulate the results in a darkroom or with software or with the camera firmware itself.


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. be doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.
> ...




Oh I know what they mean't, but it's really an outdated way of looking at things. I normally shoot darker to allow for a properly exposed sky. 

Frankly I'd tell the person to tend to their own garden as there is no "right" way to do things.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 17, 2014)

If it comes to capturing an image of a specific place/time/context, then getting it right in camera is a good idea.  However, there's lots of stuff you can do with an image beyond the purely representational or documentary, so post-processing to enhance certain characteristics, or use the image as a starting point for further creative work is certainly a legitimate approach.

I do documentary photography on my contracting projects, to show the before/during/after sequence to my clients, and to educate prospective clients on the process, techniques, and issues.  It is frequently difficult to get the lighting right, and sometimes you just have to work with what you have.  Then using the RAW file and processing it to bring out the details you need becomes part of the workflow.  My clients don't really care how the lighting is done - what they care about is whether the details they need to see are clearly visible.

For more artistic shots, the image is driven by the vision you have, and the camera is only part of the creative process.  There's the light manipulation before the image is taken, then there's the post-processing that can give the intended visual flavour to the finished image.  Fixing things in post that should have been done properly at the camera, is just sloppy work, in my opinion.  But that also applies to setting up the lighting, staging the shot, choosing the appropriate background, etc.  Image-making is much more than setting ISO, focal length, shutter speed, aperture, and focus point.


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 17, 2014)

I grant you that those comparisons really show the capability of the camera, and how much easier life can be now than it was even ten years ago, photographically speaking, BUT....  I would submit that had used a bit of supplemental light in either/both of those images, and exposed them correctly in-camera, they would have been that much better.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

paigew said:


> I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.



The noise is handled extremely well and photos edited as such look pretty amazing. I’m done several myself, but I figured those were better examples.


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how those look full size, those are pretty extreme edits.
> ...


I don't know...I have a 5dmkiii and yeah it handles noise great. I frequently max out  my ISO. But I still want to see those up close...especially the first. I mean what if the client wanted a 30x40 canvas of that...would it print okay? I might be worried.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

paigew said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



The 5D MKIII doesn't have as much latitude in the dynamic range.

This is before, after and cropped of 2.6 stops of extra exposure in LR then bumping the shadows up on the curves a little more.
















And a DR test on another site comparing the 7D MKII, 5D MKIII, and D750
Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test by Michael The Maven - Michael Andrew Photography Blog&


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

well that isn't a person  I think portraits are different as noise affects skin so much. also that doesn't look nearly as drastic.


----------



## slackercruster (Dec 17, 2014)

Sure OP, do best you can in can. But your set-up / staged photog. Doc photogs don't have that luxury, so we do it in post a lot. If you any decent photog you will do it in cam anyway when you have that option.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

It's not, but I said my examples aren't the best as I've not had it nearly long enough. I'll still light shots that need to be lit, but having the ability to use the DR to deliver otherwise unusable photos will be fantastic.

I started looking at other cameras after being limited by my previous camera at my last weddings because of the AF. The DR is just a bonus that will let me have some amazing photos for the bride and groom. I can honestly remember several instances from my last wedding where dropping the exposure by a stop or two to expose the sky and being able to recover the shadows in post would have been a much more desirable result to a slightly blown sky and properly exposed people. I was already being rushed to finish pictures as the bride and groom took a side detour to a bar down the road where they met and didn’t have the time to pull out all the lights. But they understood because they had already been made aware that less time for photos meant they might not be as good as if I were shooting my model photos and had the time to do everything I needed.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

slackercruster said:


> Sure OP, do best you can in can. But your set-up / staged photog. Doc photogs don't have that luxury, so we do it in post a lot. If you any decent photog you will do it in cam anyway when you have that option.



Um….are you sure you read the first post? How I explained with the DR available in new cameras you can easily shoot what would not be a usable SOOC shot or a poor SOOC shot and make it look like a great photo in post?


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

paigew said:


> Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.



Exactly, if you have the ability to expose for a properly exposed sky and then properly expose your subjects.

The slight editing I've done in LR is easy. Pull the shadows slider up 5 stops, adjust the exposure if needed and tweak the contrast. If you have multiple photos that were shot the same way, you can sync settings between the photos. Works great and it's quick.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 17, 2014)

My favorite artist has always been Jerry Ulesman, and he never got it right in camera. ;-) 

jerry uelsmann - Google Search


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 17, 2014)

My manner of shooting is to expose for the final image ... expose for the previsualized image. This was essential in film where you have less room to play and less tools to play with as compared to digital.. But I think it is still important to see the final image before you release the shutter and expose for what you want the final image to reflect. For me, photography isn't all about DR ... it is about capturing the exceptional image. Often, an image's impact ... the drama ... can be enhanced by being at the ends of the photographic spectrum. Bad lighting versus good lighting, extreme dark and light versus nice even lighting, et cetera. Shooting at the extremes is much tougher than shooting on good middle ground, while you'll probably end up with less keepers, the keepers you do capture may be better.

On the flip side of the coin, PhotoShop can add drama to any image, it can make day into night, give motion to still, even give or remove smiles ... but then at what point are we photographers and at what point are we digital artists?

I'm all for photo manipulation, use it as you see bit ... but for me, it is important for me to be a photographer, not a digital artist. It is important for me not to over used PhotoShop as a crutch for poor photography skills.

Gary


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > Idk call me a purist...expose for the image you want. That is my motto. I would have personally trashed those shots. Yeah they do look great, they were great saves. But I guarantee that took a lot of levels work + long time in post. I would hate to see if you had 10 images from that set all exposed like that.
> ...


Well I would have personally chosen a different exposure. One that worked with the given lighting situation + equipment.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 17, 2014)

paigew said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



It really depends on whether the exposure was set with specific intent (as seems to have been the case here), knowing exactly how the post-processing will need to be done to get to the final image; vs. getting an exposure that didn't work well, and then trying to recover in post.  This is no different than pushing the development in film days, where you deliberately underexpose and then over-develop.  Similarly, in the "expose-to-the-right", the image is usually a lot brighter in camera than it will be in the final finished image, because of the post-processing adjustments that are already planned for at the time of the camera exposure.


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

Lets all draw lines and make rules as to what is the right and what is the wrong way to make photos!!!

FFS, who cares what road people take to get to the final destination?


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

It was meant to be a discussion no? I never said it was wrong. Just said I don't do it like that [emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

paigew said:


> It was meant to be a discussion no? I never said it was wrong. Just said I don't do it like that [emoji12]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Nothing wrong with a discussion!

I am just tired of various factions trying to say what is right and wrong with what is supposed to be an art form. If you want to put limits on yourself, such as only using natural light, only using SOOC, or only using manual mode that is fine, but looking down upon people who don't, is not cool.


----------



## Designer (Dec 17, 2014)

I'm all for discussing things, and the quicker you all agree with me, the quicker we can arrive at a consensus.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 17, 2014)

Looking down on people IS my art.


----------



## MichaelHenson (Dec 17, 2014)

I think that approaching this from the perspective of the OP is an interesting concept and could very easily deliver images that are great without the additional effort in working with lighting, etc. to accomplish the same result.

The primary question I have is, what if the client (or you) would like a large print of a photo that you've processed in this way? Would it hold up to printing as well as a photo that was taken with lighting, exposure, etc. so minimal "recovery" processing is needed? My gut and what I've read says that it wouldn't but I'd love to see a comparison or hear a review from someone that's had a chance to compare.

Lively discussion!   Cue the band!


----------



## limr (Dec 17, 2014)

I find that whenever these questions come up, it's usually someone taking a technique that works for their individual needs/style/experiences and then wondering why everyone doesn't do things the same way.

Everyone shoots different and wants different things from their final image and we're all going to do what we prefer to do and what we need to do to get that image.

I personally do very little post processing and try to get it as right as possible in the camera. This is a function of my training, my equipment, my preferences, and my photographic goals and interests. Some of us have clients and have to take their concerns into consideration. Others don't and we can shoot whatever and however the hell we want.

Whatever people want to do with their photos makes absolutely no difference to me. If you accomplish what you want to accomplish using the camera or using your computer, that's totally up to you. But I'm certainly not going to feel like I'm doing things wrong just because I'm doing things differently.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 17, 2014)

If the relationship between tones in the scene (or, more exactly, as captured by whatever your sensing apparatus is) is what you want in the final print, then you can "get it right in camera" by exposing properly.

If NOT, then you just can't. You have to make adjustments. At least a touch on the contrast slider, to move tones closer together or farther apart. HDR as she is done is really just a really clever contrast slider, after all.

And for reference, even PH Emerson, who was the single most rabid anti-post-processing photographer *ever* adjusted contrast in post. It was literally the only thing he felt was legit.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

limr said:


> I find that whenever these questions come up, it's usually someone taking a technique that works for their individual needs/style/experiences and then wondering why everyone doesn't do things the same way.
> 
> Everyone shoots different and wants different things from their final image and we're all going to do what we prefer to do and what we need to do to get that image.
> 
> ...



This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures. I know not everyone can do this and as a fact, attempting it with my 5D MKII would I would get banding with chroma noise like crazy when attempting this to any extreme measures.

And I'm not saying to use it for every photo. I'll still use my lights as I can create drama with different types of lighting that you couldn't get with ambient, I just think it's a new tool to get photos you otherwise couldn't without go through a lot more work. This is something that I've see a lot of wedding photographers work with. Those are the types of photographer that shoot in rapidly changing environments with varying light.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 17, 2014)

Looks like you are really digging your Nikon over your Canon there.

I wasn't expecting as much LowLight/DR difference when I bought my d600 as compared to my d7000.
But it is a big difference in my eyes.  I love pulling the details out of the shadows, or in many instances the darkness.

It took me awhile to "dial in" my abilities to the capabilities of the d600 to the d7000.
But still plenty to learn


----------



## limr (Dec 17, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures. I know not everyone can do this and as a fact, attempting it with my 5D MKII would I would get banding with chroma noise like crazy when attempting this to any extreme measures.
> 
> And I'm not saying to use it for every photo. I'll still use my lights as I can create drama with different types of lighting that you couldn't get with ambient, *I just think it's a new tool to get photos you otherwise couldn't without go through a lot more work. *This is something that I've see a lot of wedding photographers work with. Those are the types of photographer that shoot in rapidly changing environments with varying light.



I understand this was intended as a discussion, but this kind of X vs Y dichotomy tends to lead to fractured discussions and people getting defensive.

The bolded statement also implies a certain level of judgment about what kind of "work" is more or less useful for someone. For you, setting up lighting might be onerous and time-wasting, but others might feel the same way about post processing in front of a computer. 

I'm not trying to fault you for initiating the discussion, and I realize my opening sentence also sounded judgmental and I apologize for it. I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

limr said:


> I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.



You're not a real photographer until you shoot manual settings and focus, all your images are SOOC and use natural light.


----------



## limr (Dec 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.
> ...



Well then I'm a real photographer.


----------



## runnah (Dec 17, 2014)

limr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Film doesn't count!


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Dec 17, 2014)

If your camera has an EVF you can virtually see what your photo is going to look like in terms of exposure before you take the shot, and adjust with exposure compensation if needed.

John.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 17, 2014)

Hah.  I have a camera and I click shutters.  Therefore, I am a photographer.  A real one.  Maybe not a very good one, but that wasn't one of the criteria.

If I accept Runnah's tongue-in-cheek definition, then I must be a real photographer because I shoot manual (on occasion), focus manually (as and when needed), all my images are SOOC (until I can see where I can improve them), and I use natural light (but then, pretty much all photons are "natural").  Oh, and I shoot digital (however the film camera's still loaded and ready).

But really, the argument is kinda sterile.  As our tools improve, there's more latitude in terms of what we do, and greater choices in terms of the possible workflow.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 17, 2014)

Nikon makes this too ezpz:


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Dec 17, 2014)

Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.

John.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 17, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.
> 
> John.



I think the point is that, within certain surprisingly broad limits, that's not true any more.


----------



## Fred Berg (Dec 17, 2014)

I like to get as much right at the time of exposure as is possible. That doesn't mean that I don't do any work in post, and often I know that this will be necessary to get what I want out of the photo; but getting as much right in-camera as possible increases my options afterwards.


----------



## paigew (Dec 17, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Nikon makes this too ezpz:


So actually this is my point.There is obvious noise/shadows especially on baby. While it looks okay...I wonder, what does this look like at 100%? The image in your other thread for example was imo taken too far in post. I don't think this is a reliable way to expose images.


----------



## Overread (Dec 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> Looks to me in those examples that you are getting it right in camera. You exposed for the sky knowing that your camera could pull that much detail back in the shadows. By doing so you have a nicely exposed sky and subjects.
> 
> Knowing what your camera can do is very important.



I would agree with this stance. Getting it right in camera means getting the hot as perfect as possible at the time, accepting that you might have to make sacrifices because the camera has limitations, but it also has strengths. In this case the limitation is the capacity to withhold detail in the whites - whilst the strength is the ability to restore details in the shadows.

So the photographer has worked within those boundaries and exposed the shot for the camera and then used editing to bring out the information that was captured. 



Getting it right depends on a lot - much so upon what you have to work with and also what you like to work with. If you have all the lights you need sure you can go in and do just that - or you can use the cameras dynamic range. Either way is correct as they are just different approaches.

Of course it also depends upon the output needs too - might be that shot looks great on the PC but if you blew it up or wanted more fine details it might be lacking (I say might  as I've no working idea of the cameras performance in this regard).

The photographer might also have high technical standards - yes the camera can do it; but the photographer would prefer to work with a higher grade starting photo and thus could use lighting or other elements to get more of the shot closer to the final version in editing. 

My view is also that one should be able to freely choose how to shoot; rather than be restricted by ignorance. It's like learning how to expose - sure you can use auto mode every day if you want; but you should make that choice from a position where you can use all the other modes and then select the one you want to work with. 

(note that this view is generally one aimed at enthusiasts and up - most of the general public its not a valid viewpoint - they not an interest great enough to make them want to learn how to use the camera in other modes - though that isn't to say they wouldn't "like" to, just that they don't feel the need to invest into learning it


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology can change how we take pictures. I know not everyone can do this and as a fact, attempting it with my 5D MKII would I would get banding with chroma noise like crazy when attempting this to any extreme measures.
> ...





Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.
> 
> John.



Actually, the noise is minimal depending on how much you increase the exposure and with these new Nikons, it's more like film grain and no real chroma noise


----------



## Braineack (Dec 17, 2014)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.
> 
> John.




I wouldn't say lots.  Maybe a little.







I can handle that 400ISO looking noise at the gain of 3EV of recovery.



Where I actually made focus on that same comparison, it's really hard to tell it's been raised 3 stops:







This is not how I normally expose, but goes to show you the power of a good sensor.  Even though mine spews oil and made me celibate.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 17, 2014)

mehh...

they all too fake looking anyway.... They are so close to perfect they look fake. Kind of like the record player vs compact disc thing when discs came out.  I try to get it right in camera, try to make it okay after post. I try to get it right, because when you screwed up film it just made it look kinda more authentic sometimes. when you screw up digital it just looks really stupid. As it starts out kinda fake like anyway. so now it is fake like and stupid looking because you messed it up too much. I mean hell it is just 1's and 0's data or some chit. so I try to get it right in camera and probably lean on the purist side but realistically, all digital is pretty much bullshit.
Perfect photos for me? Hell no. There wasn't a single perfect photo in our family photo album from when I grew up. None.
I can make all kinds of nice photos now I suppose. They all look fresh off the boat from china.. They got no salt? ya know? salt?  just data, tweaked to meet some middle of the road standard for a properly done photo.  so shoot, straight of cam sometimes, shot straight jpeg other night on long exposure landscapes of all things,  wth you got to lose? Might have to delete your thirtieth worthless photo of a sunset? who gives a rats azz with your perfection post processing and plastic photos.

I think that is what bothers me so much, I get riled up. Look at photos, imperfect as they were a hundred years ago. THEY GOT SALT. Look at this thing , we argue about, with one and zeros data. Lot like the perfectly remastered music....wth they think people listen to LIVE band for... I dunno, perfection kind of sucks sometimes. Entire thing is kind of a joke.  same with a band though. Ever listen to a groups cd, and think they are great?  so you decide to go see them in concert, and you find out they actually kinda fruckn suck?  Photography is becoming a lot like that with processing. Data did the same thing to music.
I dunno, I just dunno. Rant over.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 17, 2014)

You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I've simply seen many of these threads started in this manner descend too quickly into bickering about what is better. I've seen better discussions when the question was more open-ended and more explicitly discussed context.
> ...


straight up I am NOT a great photographer. okay maybe. I try. But here is the thing. I doubt almost everyone with digital, because it is too easily manipulated. You buy a expensive camera and dish out for photoshop you can screw up every photo you ever take pretty much.  Like if you, or anyone, took a photo walk with me and I found out the person couldn't use their camera sooc and make a decent image I sure would say something. There is a distinct line between being a photographer and being a digital image editor me thinks.
And if someone is more on the editing side and not so good with a camera that is fine and dandy, but they probably shouldn't be saying they are a photographer but something else. Eventually all of it will go by the way side far as photography in this context. As data is pretty much data. you will be able to walk up and hit your button. There wont be settings but just a menu. you will type in the result you want for your image and it will spit it out. More of a computer system than a camera at all. I think that is pretty much where we will end up eventually. It might even tell you what lens to put on after you are done talking to it describing your desired effect with the voice commands. At that point though, you are most likely not engaging in photography.  which doesn't matter. But if someone wants to be a photographer they will hold onto that littlest bit of the purest mentality as long as they can because photography is going extinct. we have billions of photos for those that just concentrate on that end result. But that isn't photography and we should probably be calling them "images" not photos. Photography, is going extinct. And THAT is the difference between the guy using the proper lighting instead of the cameras forgiving dynamic range and post processing corrections.  The guy pulling out the lighting gear trying to go as close sooc is a PHOTOGRAPHER.  The one taking advantage of the forgiving dynamic range on their five k new camera and post processing is a digital editor. So in that context, you can have a more serious and better photographer with a hundred dollar point and shoot.


Gary A. said:


> My manner of shooting is to expose for the final image ... expose for the previsualized image. This was essential in film where you have less room to play and less tools to play with as compared to digital.. But I think it is still important to see the final image before you release the shutter and expose for what you want the final image to reflect. For me, photography isn't all about DR ... it is about capturing the exceptional image. Often, an image's impact ... the drama ... can be enhanced by being at the ends of the photographic spectrum. Bad lighting versus good lighting, extreme dark and light versus nice even lighting, et cetera. Shooting at the extremes is much tougher than shooting on good middle ground, while you'll probably end up with less keepers, the keepers you do capture may be better.
> 
> On the flip side of the coin, PhotoShop can add drama to any image, it can make day into night, give motion to still, even give or remove smiles ... *but then at what point are we photographers and at what point are we digital artists?*
> 
> ...


 Bingo. !      The guy with the hundred dollar point and shoot that shoots at the right time of day, right perspective with right accessory lighting that makes focus with proper exposure and dof is a photographer.  The person with the five k camera that snaps fourty photos, misses focus on 39 with the wrong lighting or perpective  but then uses that dynamic range and processing to fix that photo and the great amount of mps too crop heavy and correct that IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. They rely purely on tech and edit consequentially . Digital editor or manipulator they are. Which is fine, but if they cant make a proper sooc image they aren't a photographer.and should pick a new label. Not accusing anyone here, I edit too. I think the line here with photography is on in camera skills.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

bribrius said:


> mehh...
> 
> they all too fake looking anyway.... They are so close to perfect they look fake. Kind of like the record player vs compact disc thing when discs came out.  I try to get it right in camera, try to make it okay after post. I try to get it right, because when you screwed up film it just made it look kinda more authentic sometimes. when you screw up digital it just looks really stupid. As it starts out kinda fake like anyway. so now it is fake like and stupid looking because you messed it up too much. I mean hell it is just 1's and 0's data or some chit. so I try to get it right in camera and probably lean on the purist side but realistically, all digital is pretty much bullshit.
> Perfect photos for me? Hell no. There wasn't a single perfect photo in our family photo album from when I grew up. None.
> ...



Most clients don't pay for salt, they pay for good photos.



bribrius said:


> Bingo. !      The guy with the hundred dollar point and shoot that shoots at the right time of day, right perspective with right accessory lighting that makes focus with proper exposure and dof is a photographer.  The person with the five k camera that snaps fourty photos, misses focus on 39 with the wrong lighting or perpective  but then uses that dynamic range and processing to fix that photo and the great amount of mps too crop heavy and correct that IS NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER. They rely purely on tech and edit consequentially . Digital editor or manipulator they are. Which is fine, but if they cant make a proper sooc image they aren't a photographer.and should pick a new label. Not accusing anyone here, I edit too. I think the line here with photography is on in camera skills.



You miss the point. It’s a tool to use. It’s like a flash, but just a different technique or tool. Do you think editing photos only came about once Photoshop was created? If so, you’re mistaken. This isn’t about missing photos and fixing them, this is about using the camera’s capabilities to deliberately expose a certain way to get a certain effect. It’s like using film and a dark room but with digital and Photoshop.

Photography is generally defined as the capturing of light on a physical media. Whether or not you’re editing doesn’t change this. But this is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.



That's what a lot of people thinks looks good. Hard light is defined as bad light because most people are exposed to it as the pop up flash from a camera and not pointed with a purpose.


----------



## paigew (Dec 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but correcting an underexposed photo introduces a lot of image noise, but it`s better than loosing the image i suppose.
> ...


Have to say that is impressive 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > This is not how I normally expose, but goes to show you the power of a good sensor.
> ...



I only went in and did that for purposes of this thread, but now I'm actually looking back at some of my fubbed exposures.

When I shot that I was trying to get sky detail and intentionally underexposed the subject; there still wasn't much there, but the end result after spending about 30 seconds trying to recover it ain't bad.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 18, 2014)

'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.

I am taking the latter to mean 'not the same gutless, plastic, looks exactly like everyone else's, garbage cranked out ad nauseum by a certain class of amateurs and low level professionals'.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.
> 
> I am taking the latter to mean 'not the same gutless, plastic, looks exactly like everyone else's, garbage cranked out ad nauseum by a certain class of amateurs and low level professionals'.



So "salt", which was said to be unpolished, unperfect, and mostly what sounds like a snapshot is not garbage but garbage is a polished product? You kids and your backwards ways...


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 18, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > 'Gritty' doesn't mean the same thing as 'hard light' although hard light may or may not be involved. It means, in this case, the same thing as 'salt'.
> ...



That is a very strange way to interpret what I wrote.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 18, 2014)

they will look ok on the internet how does a big print look


----------



## limr (Dec 18, 2014)

Okay fine. It's just a tool. My thoughts on the tool? I'm not interested in using it, and it will not change the way I take photographs. The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer" is a completely foreign thought to me and I don't really care to switch my approach to include it. It would involve creating post-processing work in front of the computer that I don't enjoy.

And yes, there was darkroom work too on prints to correct imperfections or create more impact, but relatively speaking, they were minor edits and tweaks compared to what is being discussed here.
Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

limr said:


> Okay fine. It's just a tool. My thoughts on the tool? I'm not interested in using it, and it will not change the way I take photographs. The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer" is a completely foreign thought to me and I don't really care to switch my approach to include it. It would involve creating post-processing work in front of the computer that I don't enjoy.
> 
> And yes, there was darkroom work to on prints to correct imperfections or create more impact, but relatively speaking, they were minor edits and tweaks compared to what is being discussed here.
> Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom



Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?

And again, I’m not talking as a new way to shoot all the time. In fact, I could see this being useful with a scene shot with proper lighting that still doesn’t do the coverage you need. Like having a one light photo that leaves the surrounding scene dark when it would otherwise be undesirable to do so. And with LR, pulling details from the shadows is a matter of clicking and dragging a slider.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Okay fine. It's just a tool. My thoughts on the tool? I'm not interested in using it, and it will not change the way I take photographs. The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer" is a completely foreign thought to me and I don't really care to switch my approach to include it. It would involve creating post-processing work in front of the computer that I don't enjoy.
> ...


 I'm pretty much with Lenore on this.  It's not something I would ever use intentionally, but If there was a "grab it now or miss it forever" opportunity, then yes, it has its uses, but for the most part, IMO, "proper" exposure means just that.  The image captured by the camera should be more or less as you thte finished image to be.  Granted, there will be the odd time it can't be, but 99.9% of the time, why not?


----------



## limr (Dec 18, 2014)

Village Idiot said:


> Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?



Yes, I believe the originals were exposed poorly.



> And again, I’m not talking as a new way to shoot all the time. In fact, I could see this being useful with a scene shot with proper lighting that still doesn’t do the coverage you need. Like having a one light photo that leaves the surrounding scene dark when it would otherwise be undesirable to do so. And with LR, pulling details from the shadows is a matter of clicking and dragging a slider.



You said in post #32:


Village Idiot said:


> This was more of a topic of discussion about how improved technology *can change how we take pictures.*



I'm not interested in changing the way I take pictures.

I also don't shoot weddings or portraits or with lighting equipment, so this tool would be of very limited use to me. And I don't enjoy processing in front of a computer, even if it is just a matter of dragging sliders around (assuming one has LR, which I don't), so even if I did shoot portraits or whatever with lighting equipment, I would rather put in the time of setting things up at the shoot.

I wasn't arguing anyone's point. You asked for thoughts. Those are my thoughts about my own individual interest (or lack thereof) in this tool.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



Because not every out door shot will be on an overcast day or will have the time to set up lights?


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

limr said:


> The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"


Statements like this strongly imply that people are actually out there, actively thinking to themselves WHILE SHOOTING, "I'll INTENTIONALLY expose my photos badly, and then just fix it in post.  Yes, let me see - all I have to do is move that exposure needle away from the middle, way off the scale, and I'll have EXACTLY the bad exposure I'm looking for."

And that, my friends, is just pure BS.

Ever notice how most of the "purists" who make these kinds of arguments about how people just expose badly while thinking, "I'll just fix it in post", usually supplemented with the argument about how photography shouldn't be about spending time in front of the computer and how they don't enjoy the editing process, also admit in other threads that they basically suck at the editing process because they haven't taken the time to actually learn it?  To them, that's not part of photography, while to those who aren't put off by it, it is indeed a part of photography, just as the darkroom aspects were a part of photography to those who worked in the medium pre-digital.

Meanwhile, who really cares?  Do what you want, the way you want, and don't judge others for doing it differently.

Gee, there's an idea.


----------



## limr (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"
> ...



But that's what the OP was talking about: knowing full well that the shadows will be too dark but taking the picture anyway with the intention of bringing up the shadows in LR.



> Ever notice how most of the "purists" who make these kinds of arguments about how people just expose badly while thinking, "I'll just fix it in post", usually supplemented with the argument about *how photography shouldn't be about spending time in front of the computer and how they don't enjoy the editing process, also admit in other threads that they basically suck at the editing process because they haven't taken the time to actually learn it?*  To them, that's not part of photography, while to those who aren't put off by it, it is indeed a part of photography, just as the darkroom aspects were a part of photography to those who worked in the medium pre-digital.



Did I ever say this, here or in another thread? Did I ever say what photography SHOULD be or just how I personally like to shoot? This seems like a sweeping generalization that can also be characterized as pure BS. I've seen this countless times on this forum: anyone who says they don't like X really just doesn't know how to use it. It was, in fact, written in this very thread. Anyone who says they only shoot manual or natural light are morons. Why? Why can't it just be preference instead of a lie to hide inadequacies, as the accusation often runs? People ARE allowed to have likes and dislikes, right? And to base their behaviors upon these likes or dislikes?



> Meanwhile, who really cares?  Do what you want, the way you want, and don't judge others for doing it differently.
> 
> Gee, there's an idea.



Gee, I think I've already expressed that idea:


limr said:


> Everyone shoots different and wants different things from their final image and we're all going to do what we prefer to do and what we need to do to get that image.
> 
> I personally do very little post processing and try to get it as right as possible in the camera. This is a function of my training, my equipment, my preferences, and my photographic goals and interests. Some of us have clients and have to take their concerns into consideration. Others don't and we can shoot whatever and however the hell we want.
> 
> *Whatever people want to do with their photos makes absolutely no difference to me. If you accomplish what you want to accomplish using the camera or using your computer, that's totally up to you.* But I'm certainly not going to feel like I'm doing things wrong just because I'm doing things differently.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

limr said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


FOR A REASON that has to do with the exposure of the rest of the image.  Did you miss that part?

We see the purist's arguments all the time on these issues, and it always boils down to the same thing when it's all said and done:

To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera.

To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.


----------



## limr (Dec 18, 2014)

Oh god, this is so not worth it. Walls are more interesting to talk to.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> ...*To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera*.
> 
> To the rest of us, photography is about how to make an image people like to look at or even treasure.


Really?  Sorry Buckster, not buying that for a second.  How about, "To the purist, photography is about using all of the tools the photographer has available to create the image that he (or she) envisions."  The camera is a tool, and while important to the process it's not the be all and end all.


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of taking a picture, knowing that it will be exposed poorly and thinking, "I'll just accomplish these things on my computer"
> ...


I shoot 90%+ in manual, 99+% of the time I shoot in a fluid environment with constantly changing light.  Many times I get sloppy and I don't adjust my settings to accommodate the changing light ... conscientiously knowing I can probably pull out the image in post. It is a bad lazy habit that I am working hard to change ...

Gary


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > ...*To the purist, photography is about how to operate a camera*.
> ...


Clearly, that is NOT the purist's position at all.  "Get it right in the camera" is the only thing important to them.  Photoshop is clearly a bad thing that shouldn't be considered a part of photography, and that they don't even care to learn much about.

If you can't see that for yourself from their statements, you're blind.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.


I block a lot of that forum talk out with the processing usually. ignore much of it. There are a billion processed photos already and counting that aren't worth a damn thing. shows how much the cloning mattered.


Buckster said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


just different mentality. For me I find photography, that I enjoy being out in the world. Looking at things. The relationship between me and the world around me and whatever camera I am holding. I almost find it somewhat enlightening in a odd way. Watching the world go bye. Actually doing it. The processing part, while I do some is NOT enlightening. No relationship. sort of the darkness and drudgery of it. Really a mood killer. I come back from shooting in a good mood. Start going through images and that mood is dulled quick. There is no relationship with a computer screen. Life is outside, moving, vibrant. The computer is sitting there dead. no life. emotionless. So even if the image comes out well or better after post processing it is pretty much dead for me. I will often toss  images just to avoid processing them.  The computer edits and time spent staring at it on the screen sucked the life out of it. But if I come back from shooting and I have images that I can or I desire to leave near as is. I am tickled pink. As I kept that relationship with being "out there" through out and staring at the computer didn't detract from the experience or what I considered the relation I had with what is around me. For me photography IS NOT in editing. It is the direct relationship with what is around me and my ability to capture that while being a part of it. Staring at a screen editing, well that is something else far less intimate or real.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

bribrius said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > You can make lovely gritty photos with digital. It ain't the medium. It might be the forum. TPF leans toward the 'fill light, clone that out, crop this, smooth that' end of things.
> ...


Exactly my point.  Thank you.

For you, the joy of photography is about operating the camera as you interact with the world.  Post processing can go stuff itself, whether that would result in a nice image or not.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

I spent quite a few years shooting polaroid instant film too. so that might have something to do with it. I am really into "the moment"


----------



## paigew (Dec 18, 2014)

5dmkiii
I blew this shot...it was the very first one of the session as we were walking to our place and I hadn't metered yet. Although the save looks okay, I didn't give this to my clients...it is unacceptable to me to have to increase exposure so drastically.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


To a large extent YES. I will and need to get involved in processing more for that occasional one image that really means something I just feel the need to have or if it is REQUIRED. But for the most part I toss post processing out the proverbial window as I would rather toss the photos than do it whether they come out nice or not..  But if a certain image or images is of high importance I will process, I will make myself process even though I dread it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> 5dmkiii
> I blew this shot...it was the very first one of the session as we were walking to our place and I hadn't metered yet. Although the save looks okay, I didn't give this to my clients...it is unacceptable to me to have to increase exposure so drastically. View attachment 91425



If it comes up with an acceptable finished product, then why?

Especially if the finished product looks better than a shot where the subject meters at properly exposed and you end up with a lot of overexposed area, like sky. I'm not saying that shot wouldn't have been OK, but there are circumstances where the DR of the displayed image is too much for the displayed media and more than the actual DR of the scene you're shooting.


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

Yes, the cake was delicious when I tasted it, and everyone would have loved it.  But I threw it in the trash anyway because I took it out of the oven 5 minutes too early and then had to put it back in for a while to make up for it, and that's just wrong to me.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2014)

what does the client care?


----------



## paigew (Dec 18, 2014)

well it isn't acceptable to me.  I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> well it isn't acceptable to me.  I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality. View attachment 91427



What's the difference between your two finished photos? Also, the new Nikon cameras are still more capable than the 5D MKIII.


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 18, 2014)

I was taught to hunt with a single barrel shotgun. The lesson was to get it right the first time (in this case, there wasn't a second or third chance to clean up sloppiness). It seems the trend is to machine gun off 100 exposures, in hopes get one "keeper" or shoot away "close enough" to clean up in Photshop. To me both just breeds sloppiness. I could be wrong, but it seems the more an image is post manipulated, quality HAS to be lost, no matter how minute. Just my two cents.


----------



## paigew (Dec 18, 2014)

this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> well it isn't acceptable to me.  I prefer smooth glowing skin of a properly exposed image...one that I can confidently print on a canvas if requested. I don't know, I suppose I am a perfectionist in that way. I just could not give an image that wasn't of a certain level of technical correctness/quality. View attachment 91427


well if I isn't acceptable to you that is all that matters. you are in charge. You are ceo of quality control and your business toss it.


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> I was taught to hunt with a single barrel shotgun. The lesson was to get it right the first time (in this case, there wasn't a second or third chance to clean up sloppiness). It seems the trend is to machine gun off 100 exposures, in hopes get one "keeper" or shoot away "close enough" to clean up in Photshop. To me both just breeds sloppiness. I could be wrong, but the more an imagine is post manipulated, quality HAS to be lost, no matter how minute. Just my two cents.



That's entirely the opposite of using the technique that this thread was started about. There are also lossless files and non destructive editing. In fact, taking an image with blowout bits and leaving them blown out without recovering them gives you an image with more lost data than recovering them.



paigew said:


> this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights
> View attachment 91430



Did you raise just the shadows or the overall exposure?

Edit: And you can see the difference between how the Canon handles this vs. the new Nikons with the chroma noise that's all too apparent in the adjusted photo. You don't get this until more extreme adjustments with the Nikon RAW files.


----------



## paigew (Dec 18, 2014)

@Village Idiot


----------



## gsgary (Dec 18, 2014)

limr said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Is it really being exposed poorly if you’re exposing for a proper image or is shooting a scene with blown out highlights because of a large dynamic range being exposed poorly?
> ...



I'm not interested in changing the way I take pictures.

I also don't shoot weddings or portraits or with lighting equipment, so this tool would be of very limited use to me. And I don't enjoy processing in front of a computer, even if it is just a matter of dragging sliders around (assuming one has LR, which I don't), so even if I did shoot portraits or whatever with lighting equipment, I would rather put in the time of setting things up at the shoot.

I wasn't arguing anyone's point. You asked for thoughts. Those are my thoughts about my own individual interest (or lack thereof) in this tool.[/QUOTE]

Thats because you shoot mostly film like me and you have to take more care and attention to exposure, even though I have an A7 that can do the same as that example I would never shoot like that
[


----------



## Village Idiot (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> @Village Idiot View attachment 91431



Bumping up the overall exposure by over 2 1/2 stops will blow highlights because you're not just recovering shadows, you're raising the exposure level of everything.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Thats because you shoot mostly film like me and you have to take more care and attention to exposure, even though I have an A7 that can do the same as that example I would never shoot like that
[[/QUOTE]
Well I made a mess of the post big fingers and smart phones don't go together


----------



## Braineack (Dec 18, 2014)

paigew said:


> this is the difference to me. I can see a huge difference in quality/color/tone/highlights
> View attachment 91430



okay yeah, i see it there.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 18, 2014)

There are so many things going on in this thread! And the biggest one is self-important posturing! YAY!


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

bribrius said:


> on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..


That's a great argument, right up until you understand how human eyeballs actually work:

Cameras vs. The Human Eye

The human eye can detect a luminance range of 10^14, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 10^8 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 18, 2014)

Of the several things going on here, I count:


scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
expose more or less at random and attempt to fix in post OR fix mistakes in post which is pretty much the same thing
I shoot film and therefore I am awesome plus flim is super duper hard
digital produces terrible results with no salt
photoguy99 is dumb and should be yelled at for his dumbness

None of these things are related to any of the others, and yet, people seem to be trying to stitch them in to a coherent flow. Which isn't working too well.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > on subject. I think there are instances one should be on guard using that dynamic range. As it does give more power in editing it might require some self restrictions. I was looking at a photo I took earlier of a snow covered road, almost full sunset. Exposed for the sky. course the road and trees lining it are heavily shadowed and dark. First instinct looking at it was to get rid of that darkness on the road and dark trees as it was exposed for the sky. shadow recovery. But upon considering it, the road and trees WAS dark when I looked at it. so I could recover the shadows and brighten them up and upon viewing the photo it might look more appealing. But if one thought about it for more than a couple seconds staring at it they would wonder how at that time of day with the sun where it is the road and trees could even have light. so it becomes very unnatural very quick if you stop and actually consider what you are looking at. with less dynamic range, that limit in shadow recovery could have been a barrier preventing extreme screw ups. with more dynamic range one might have to "self police" themselves..
> ...


it has nothing to do with how the human eyeballs work. I am saying the greater ability to edit and dynamic range can be pushed accidently to the point of making the scene nolonger feasible to a discerning individual looking at the photo. I am well aware of the dynamic range of the human eye, I am also well aware of when a photo goes beyond a point of being realistic. For instance shadow recover has a definite point of when it becomes unnatural as shadows are somewhat normal.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 18, 2014)

That was an interesting read, Buckster.  Some stuff I knew, some stuff was new.  The act of "seeing" is much more of a mental exercise than we usually think.  

The only thing that article skips over are the "eyes at the back of the head" that mothers and teachers have.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Of the several things going on here, I count:
> 
> 
> scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
> ...


lol. you made me laugh...

people do what they do anyway. no matter...


----------



## Buckster (Dec 18, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


Nobody's even suggesting that everything should be edited to the point where all luminance in the photo should be middle gray, or even anything close to that.

But the idea that what pops out of the camera looks luminance-correct compared to what the human eye saw when standing there is just plain wrong.  It's not in any way even near the same, especially when the contrast gets more intense.  Human eyeballs deal with it just fine, where cameras, digital or film, simply can't.  That's the whole idea behind HDR, dodging and burning in a darkroom or Photoshop, and the specific topic under discussion here.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 18, 2014)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


oh, I wont even claim that what pops out of a camera is even close to what the human eye sees. Examples below I took as a jpeg. with a kick in contrast the snow is blown out, between the buildings black. clearly a effect of lack of dynamic range lacking. Clearly when I looked at his scene this is not a direct reflection of what was there. My only concern with what is being discussed here is taking the editing and dynamic range too far the other direction. Which I really dont care what others do but with more power comes more restriction possibly needed. At some point you will lose the shadows in between the buildings to a large extent, the effect of the street lights and the photo would be on the other end up the spectrum of believability. which is something hdr does seem to run in to at times. If one wanted to they could reduce the lights and increase the shadow of the photo so that they are in such a middle the light and shadows nolonger makes sense.

 I am not arguing that people are suggesting doing such a thing. I do think the more you "play" the more careful one might want to be in not overdoing using dynamic range and editing of a photo on that opposite end if they want to keep it believable. Because at some point one may think with edits that it all looks better, but at another they may start to see the streetlights and shadows have gone to the point the scene is lost to unbelievability and entire purpose of the shot gone..  stupid light house shot here. over kicking the shadow isn't much different from using a dulled flash. Since the light is clearly on the other side with the lit up light house the foreground being equally lit not only wouldn't make sense but also detract from the image. Neither of these are great images I am just posting for examples of when or how I think someone could take the editing and dynamic range to a counter productive level.  In these cases (clearly at my self inflicted expense of the photos shooting jpeg with no dynamic range so trashed the photos from the get go) I am on one side of the spectrum, while I do believe there is another side as well.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 18, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Of the several things going on here, I count:
> 
> 
> scene has more dynamic range than can be handled in 8 bit color, so expose for one thing "properly', and fix the rest in post.
> ...


I don't remember anyone saying film is hard


----------

