"Getting it right in the camera."

[ameerat42]

"Getting it right in the camera."

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

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

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

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

[MissionMan]

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

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

[fess67]

My view...

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

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

[ricktas]

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

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

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

[jim]

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

This.

[neil70]

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

[bitsnpieces]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Langers]

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

[Mark L]

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

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

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

[snappysi]

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

Simon.

[Glenda]

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

[ameerat42]

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

[Steve Axford]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ameerat42]

It sounds fairly comprehensive, Steve.

[wmphoto]

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

[ameerat42]

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

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

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

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

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

[MissionMan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ameerat42]

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

[arthurking83]

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

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

[ameerat42]

Take some time and marshall your THAWts, AK:D

[I @ M]

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

[Mark L]

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

SOOC = So Oh Oh Cold.

[dtmateojr]

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

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

[Mark L]

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

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

[dtmateojr]

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

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

[I @ M]

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

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

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

[arthurking83]

Agreed!

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

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

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

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

[dtmateojr]

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

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

[Dug]

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

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

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

Two schools of thought, both equally valid.

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

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

[Mark L]

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

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

[dtmateojr]

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

Not SLIDE film.

[ricktas]

Not SLIDE film.

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

[dtmateojr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOT slide film.

[ricktas]

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

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

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

Three stages, capture, process, print!

[dtmateojr]

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

[dtmateojr]

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

[ricktas]

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

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

[dtmateojr]

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

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

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/jpeg-vs-raw-revisited/

[ricktas]

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

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/jpeg-vs-raw-revisited/

The resolution of film is about equivelent to a 50MP full frame camera. Why shoot in jpg and lose a heap of that resolution? I shake my head at comparing a JPG to film. :lol2: Sorry, but you have lost me entirely by comparing film to jpg. If you shoot jpg fair enough, your choice, but no way I or most other photographers would. Just cause you wrote an article on JPG v RAW does not mean your opinion on it, is the correct one, it is just your opinion. I am moving on from this discussion.

[I @ M]

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

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

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

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

[dtmateojr]

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

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

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

No arguments there. That is equivalent to in-camera effects. Cross processing film is very common in lomography too.

[dtmateojr]

The resolution of film is about equivelent to a 50MP full frame camera. Why shoot in jpg and lose a heap of that resolution? I shake my head at comparing a JPG to film. :lol2: Sorry, but you have lost me entirely by comparing film to jpg. If you shoot jpg fair enough, your choice, but no way I or most other photographers would. Just cause you wrote an article on JPG v RAW does not mean your opinion on it, is the correct one, it is just your opinion. I am moving on from this discussion.

Not sure where resolution fits into the picture but let me play... The Pentax 645 still shoots jpeg, right?

[ricktas]

Not sure where resolution fits into the picture but let me play... The Pentax 645 still shoots jpeg, right?

I am not going to 'play' with you. I disagree with your opinion. End of discussion.

[dtmateojr]

Disagree all you want. That's fine. I can make images that I am satisfied with even with very very minimal processing. Sitting in front of a computer is not my idea of fun in photography.

[I @ M]

The Pentax 645 still shoots jpeg, right?

8 bit jpeg yes, much the same as other cameras but I would rather be printing large images captured from uncompressed 14 bit raw files.

[dtmateojr]

8 bit jpeg yes, much the same as other cameras but I would rather be printing large images captured from uncompressed 14 bit raw files.

You can't print raw though and I'm not sure if jpeg is the limitation during printing. Printers actually have way lesser dynamic range.

[I @ M]

Disagree all you want. That's fine. I can make images that I am satisfied with even with very very minimal processing. Sitting in front of a computer is not my idea of fun in photography.

Yep, if you are happy that is all that is important. Nobody is knocking you for the way you do things. You do have to consider the way you present "your facts" however and be prepared to accept that you might be wrong sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -


You can't print raw though and I'm not sure if jpeg is the limitation during printing. Printers actually have way lesser dynamic range.

Who said anything about printing raw?

Maybe you haven't looked at modern day commercial printers but I can assure you that an image printed from an uncompressed format looks much better than from a compressed 8 bit jpeg when compared side by side.

[dtmateojr]

Yep, if you are happy that is all that is important. Nobody is knocking you for the way you do things. You do have to consider the way you present "your facts" however and be prepared to accept that you might be wrong sometimes.

It would enlighten everyone if you can tell us what's wrong with the facts I presented with regard to slide film. For the record, I still shoot a lot of film, negative and slide, and I process my own negatives as well. I scan my negatives if I decide to print them.

[dtmateojr]

Yep, if you are happy that is all that is important. Nobody is knocking you for the way you do things. You do have to consider the way you present "your facts" however and be prepared to accept that you might be wrong sometimes.

- - - Updated - - -



Who said anything about printing raw?

Maybe you haven't looked at modern day commercial printers but I can assure you that an image printed from an uncompressed format looks much better than from a compressed 8 bit jpeg when compared side by side.

No, I don't own one and not aware of whatever printers the labs use when I send my photos to them. Interesting to note that 8-bit and 16-bit printing output look the same according to this:

http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4880/epson4880_8vs16bit.shtml

[I @ M]

It would enlighten everyone if you can tell us what's wrong with the facts I presented with regard to slide film. For the record, I still shoot a lot of film, negative and slide, and I process my own negatives as well. I scan my negatives if I decide to print them.

Well, I don't know if "everyone" needs to be enlightened but I will present my theory to you as simply as I can.

I will liken slide film to the memory card in a camera, they are both carriers of raw data. The data contained in the slide film cannot be viewed on a light table or in a slide projector until developing and processing has occurred. The data contained on the memory card cannot be viewed on a monitor until developing and processing has occurred.

In short, going back to start of this topic, getting it right in camera is equally relevant to any form of image capture.

[dtmateojr]

Well, I don't know if "everyone" needs to be enlightened but I will present my theory to you as simply as I can.

I will liken slide film to the memory card in a camera, they are both carriers of raw data. The data contained in the slide film cannot be viewed on a light table or in a slide projector until developing and processing has occurred. The data contained on the memory card cannot be viewed on a monitor until developing and processing has occurred.

In short, going back to start of this topic, getting it right in camera is equally relevant to any form of image capture.

We are talking about photoshop retouching here. Your arguments don't apply. A jpeg in a memory card is a complete set of data capable of being viewed or printed. Slide film needs to be developed but NOT necessarily post processed.

Great photographers have achieved their level of status without ever retouching any of their shots. Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry and more recently, Vivian Meier, did not retouch. Very few greats retouched their photos and I can honestly name only one: Ansel Adams. The rest depended on labs or other independent printing people.

That's proof that if you are good enough then you can get it right in camera without the need for post processing. Digital shooters seem to think that photoshop is a necessary step. Well it is if you insist on shooting raw but you do not have to. If you really want uncompressed photos then get a Nikon. My D700 saves in TIFF as well.

[ameerat42]

Thanks to everybody for taking the trouble to comprehensively express their views.

I suppose this is a topic where perception of someone else's point of view can vary greatly among individuals.

I think that we have just saved this discussion from derailing into a post-processing vs not discussion, which has been treated elsewhere recently.

In the end, people are just describing what they think can be "got right" in the camera. Inevitably, photographic experience would play a part here.

No doubt there will be other (edit incl) interesting contributions to this thread.

Ta, Am.

[I @ M]

We are talking about photoshop retouching here. Your arguments don't apply. A jpeg in a memory card is a complete set of data capable of being viewed or printed. Slide film needs to be developed but NOT necessarily post processed.

Great photographers have achieved their level of status without ever retouching any of their shots. Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry and more recently, Vivian Meier, did not retouch. Very few greats retouched their photos and I can honestly name only one: Ansel Adams. The rest depended on labs or other independent printing people.

That's proof that if you are good enough then you can get it right in camera without the need for post processing. Digital shooters seem to think that photoshop is a necessary step. Well it is if you insist on shooting raw but you do not have to. If you really want uncompressed photos then get a Nikon. My D700 saves in TIFF as well.

Demo, I am not talking about photoshop retouching either. Quite simply I think that you are missing the point entirely as nowhere have I mentioned jpeg images when talking about developing digital files. I am talking about the raw format data. It does need some form of development whether in camera or in the digital darkroom of a computer because just as a slide film that has not been subjected to light and colour sensitive chemicals it cannot be viewed until processed / developed. Yes, a jpeg can be viewed on the camera, on a 'puter screen or even just printed ( direct from the camera if one wishes to do so ) and of course that image can be entirely satisfactory for many peoples needs. I too quite often photograph in jpeg and I am entirely happy with the results a lot of the time.
As I said a few posts ago, #26 ^, straight from the camera or processed to death are all valid ways to create an image and in both instances getting the basics right in camera go a long long way towards creating a good image.

My main point of discussion here ( not argument ) is that you stated as if it were a fact that slide film doesn't need processing, #31^ and until someone shows me a slide that hasn't been processed, your "fact" is entirely wrong.

[arthurking83]

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

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/jpeg-vs-raw-revisited/

Way too many generalisations in that article to be considered useful!
Most comments are just plain wrong!
They may be right for your situations, but overall, like Rick said, they are just your opinion(you should really make that plain for any unsuspecting reader to be aware of!)


You can't print raw though and I'm not sure if jpeg is the limitation during printing. Printers actually have way lesser dynamic range.
Again .. an incomplete generalisation based on what you may be(or may not be) able to do, but I've printed my raw files successfully. Note that they were only test files, but that's beside the point.
Raw files can be printed if required ... just like any other static image format can be.
The external printing service I've used in the past has commented to me that for the best possible print, the 8bit jpg format is more of a hindrance to printing than is 16bit tiff.
This doesn't mean that you can't get good prints from a jpg, as may be assumed on initial reading .. it simply means that if there is a situation where you want/need a better quality print, 16bit tiff is better.
If you can't accept that more compression in a load of data will yield lower quality, then maybe you should reconsider offering advice on the topic.



.....

That's proof that if you are good enough then you can get it right in camera without the need for post processing. Digital shooters seem to think that photoshop is a necessary step. Well it is if you insist on shooting raw but you do not have to. If you really want uncompressed photos then get a Nikon. My D700 saves in TIFF as well.

We don't need proof that an image can be shot right in camera! This is a known fact by most people.
Again, generalisations don't help any discussion other than onto a path towards disarray and convolution.
I know many 'digital shooters' that don't need photoshop as a neccessary step in their workflow.
Photoshop doesn't help in a raw workflow in any way. In fact (that I know of) .. photoshop itself doesn't recognise most raw formats, if any at all.

But no matter which way you talk about it, whether it's jpg, tiff, raw or bmp .. software is still needed to view and print any image files.
The comment that jpg is a complete set of data that can be viewed or printed is completely meaningless. it's no different to tiff or raw .. they can all be viewed and or printed.

[Kym]

JPEG in camera means the camera CPU + firmware has processed the photo...
The camera has as a minimum done:

Noise reduction
Contrast
Brightness
Saturation
Sharpening
White balance

All of that based on what some back room geek decided to program into the firmware.

You have also gone from 14 bits (typically) to 8 bits per channel.
So your JPEG has less DR, less information, and has had inflicted upon it the 'average' processing decided by the gteek working for the manufacturer.

I guess that is the same as an instamatic film being processed by the local chemist on default settings (back in the day).
Which is fine for 99% of happy snaps, but leaves the processing creativity to someone other than the author.

Even with slide you had the option of altering the development process, then we used to print from slide via cibachrome.

Which is why raw is 99% of the time a better option.

[arthurking83]

While this is going to go partially off topic, there's more to raw than just the ability to enhance some aspect of the captured image.
While there are other advantages of shooting a scene in raw mode, a massive advantage not normally associated with raw file capture is in it's ability to teach the new photographer on how to set the camera right, when it's not quite right!
This is contrary to what dtmateojr says in his blog(which is technically wrong).
While there is no right or wrong format to shoot when new to photography, the best teaching tool is the one that offers you more data, both to play with and or manipulate.
Shooting in jpg mode restricts the ability to process the file in so many ways(that most of us already know of) and something that raw files can help you learn what you or the camera or even the lens did wrong!

Like Kym said, the jpg file out of the camera is usually preprocessed to a particular level.
The only further process that I'll add to Kym's list is lens correcting distortion in many instances nowadays(maybe not all, but many cameras do this by default now).

If the camera is attempting to fix a problem in some way(ie. in jpg mode), you won't see the true extent of the problem until you shoot in raw mode.
With a raw file and the correct software, if you are having trouble with getting it right in the camera, the correct software allows you to tinker with the incorrectly captured images much more easily on the PC with various tweaks it allows, which can be mirrored on the camera too.
So instead of fluffing about with all the various settings the camera has to offer and shooting a zillion images while the moment passes you by, you learn how to set the camera up to begin with at home, in an easy to visualize environment, adapt those setting you just learned on the camera .. which makes it easier to get it right in the camera next time around.

This nonsense being bandied about to shoot in jpg mode for beginners is becoming far too common. It's a KRism .. and the vast majority of experienced photographers have learned to ignore KR.

To use an analogy with books:

a jpg image is the literature equivalent of a book that reads:

In the beginning, _____________________________________________________ The End

A raw file equivalent read be more like:

In the beginning ... <loads of useful data/trivia/content/tools/ability/tweaking/etc> ... The End

Wouldn't it be more prudent to know of all this data, tools, tweaking, ability .. etc. Or is it more important just to know the ending?




.....

Which is why raw is 99% of the time a better option.

You're short by about 1% there Kym!! :p

I'm not the type that is against the internal processing of the camera. Doesn't bother me one iota that some geek programmed the camera to produce colours in a certain manner, or it's sharpening in a specific way, or that the image may even look cartoonish.
I like the ability to set the camera to produce a specific look, which is easy to create and tweak, and then load into the camera to give a resultant image .. but the image is always still a raw file.

What worries me more is dubious information!

[Allann]

A lot of this discussion has been about the technical aspects of "getting it right in camera" but there seems to be a big element missing that hasn't been touched on much at all. That of the image itself with regard to what is IN the image. Let me explain that a little; If taking 3 steps to the left will remove a tree from coming out of someones head, or moving an extension lead that crosses the floor, or maybe a stray leaf from a clean patio, or even sweeping a path before a shot, helps to improve the final image, that to me is a large part of getting it right. I don't want to spend forever removing distracting elements from an image.

Other things could also include fixing makeup in a portrait session, polishing metal in a product shoot, going to the grocery store to get just the right apple for a food shoot, etc. Many of us, myself included, sometimes don't take the time with the "props", the environment, etc to make the image just a little better. I know for example I have sat down to review/process my images and said, "why didn't I move that?", or "I should have cleaned that?", etc

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Kym]

No fixing bad composition (what is in the image) in photoshop .. well not without massive editing and adding elements.
Yes, getting as much right in camera is our goal, but it is still only step one of the process

[I @ M]

Just my 2 cents worth.

Worth way more than $0.02 Jon. :th3:

As someone who does quite a bit of "formal posing" subject placement and backgrounds are an important part of the process and one which I try get right before the shutter button is pressed. I agree it is as much a part of getting it right "in the camera" as the technical bits, thanks for expressing the thoughts in this thread.

[dtmateojr]

Way too many generalisations in that article to be considered useful!
Most comments are just plain wrong!
They may be right for your situations, but overall, like Rick said, they are just your opinion(you should really make that plain for any unsuspecting reader to be aware of!)


Again .. an incomplete generalisation based on what you may be(or may not be) able to do, but I've printed my raw files successfully. Note that they were only test files, but that's beside the point.
Raw files can be printed if required ... just like any other static image format can be.
The external printing service I've used in the past has commented to me that for the best possible print, the 8bit jpg format is more of a hindrance to printing than is 16bit tiff.
This doesn't mean that you can't get good prints from a jpg, as may be assumed on initial reading .. it simply means that if there is a situation where you want/need a better quality print, 16bit tiff is better.
If you can't accept that more compression in a load of data will yield lower quality, then maybe you should reconsider offering advice on the topic.




We don't need proof that an image can be shot right in camera! This is a known fact by most people.
Again, generalisations don't help any discussion other than onto a path towards disarray and convolution.
I know many 'digital shooters' that don't need photoshop as a neccessary step in their workflow.
Photoshop doesn't help in a raw workflow in any way. In fact (that I know of) .. photoshop itself doesn't recognise most raw formats, if any at all.

But no matter which way you talk about it, whether it's jpg, tiff, raw or bmp .. software is still needed to view and print any image files.
The comment that jpg is a complete set of data that can be viewed or printed is completely meaningless. it's no different to tiff or raw .. they can all be viewed and or printed.

Can you point out EXACTLY which part of the article is WRONG? :-)
Let's see if the "wrong" isn't just based on your own opinion.

[I @ M]

Can you point out EXACTLY which part of the article is WRONG? :-)
Let's see if the "wrong" isn't just based on your own opinion.

I'll bite, I read 11 lines into that page and found one wrong statement,


To make full use of RAW you will have to tweak it.

I guess if I had the inclination to read more I would find more incorrect statements.

They are your views Demo and I as I said earlier, perhaps you might like to examine the things that you state as fact and consider that you might not be as right as you think you are.

[dtmateojr]

What's wrong with that? Raw files don't even represent real colours because each sensel is just one colour. Raw files need to be interpolated to resemble RGB. JPEG, otoh, is a real image. Maybe you should be the one who should get your facts straight.

[Mark L]

"To make full use of RAW you will have to tweak it."
I'd rather grab as much information as possible and do the tweaking on a computer over using the less powerful tweaking of the in cameras processing.
Sometimes I've actually got it right in camera and only have to sharpen the RAW file. The computer does this better than the camera also. Is that tweaking?
It's well and good to say you'd prefer to be out there taking photos and not sitting in front of a computer PPing those photos. And if you're happy with the results, so be it. I've found that a little work on the computer does better than the camera. And until I always get it right in camera (which can't happen for me) .......
;)

[Kym]

What's wrong with that? Raw files don't even represent real colours because each sensel is just one colour. Raw files need to be interpolated to resemble RGB. JPEG, otoh, is a real image. Maybe you should be the one who should get your facts straight.

JPEG has separate RGB values ... just less info ... i.e. only 8 bits / channel and compression in the file format as well

[I @ M]

What's wrong with that? Raw files don't even represent real colours because each sensel is just one colour. Raw files need to be interpolated to resemble RGB. JPEG, otoh, is a real image. Maybe you should be the one who should get your facts straight.

As a final response to your argumentative posts which seem to only serve a purpose of directing people to read your blog, which I feel should carry a warning to readers who may end up believing that you know what you are talking about ----

If I make an image in a D700 with with picture control "std" at the default parameters with image quality = NEF (raw) format I have the choice of out putting it from the camera as a jpeg or a tiff file as well as saving the raw file for later editing if I choose.

If I make an image in a D700 with with picture control "std" at the default parameters with image quality = jpeg format I have the choice of out putting it from the camera as a jpeg and saving the file for later editing if I choose.

From that you can see that I will have an image from the raw file that is ready to print and has not been "tweaked".
Therefore your statement that raw files have to be tweaked is incorrect.
You are wrong, simple as that and I suggest that you go and take some photographs, enjoy the experience, learn and stop trying to convince people that you are KR reinvented.

[ricktas]

As a final response to your argumentative posts which seem to only serve a purpose of directing people to read your blog, which I feel should carry a warning to readers who may end up believing that you know what you are talking about ----



Like the one Ken Rockwell has on his site?


This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

Ref: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

[dtmateojr]

As a final response to your argumentative posts which seem to only serve a purpose of directing people to read your blog, which I feel should carry a warning to readers who may end up believing that you know what you are talking about ----

If I make an image in a D700 with with picture control "std" at the default parameters with image quality = NEF (raw) format I have the choice of out putting it from the camera as a jpeg or a tiff file as well as saving the raw file for later editing if I choose.

If I make an image in a D700 with with picture control "std" at the default parameters with image quality = jpeg format I have the choice of out putting it from the camera as a jpeg and saving the file for later editing if I choose.

From that you can see that I will have an image from the raw file that is ready to print and has not been "tweaked".
Therefore your statement that raw files have to be tweaked is incorrect.
You are wrong, simple as that and I suggest that you go and take some photographs, enjoy the experience, learn and stop trying to convince people that you are KR reinvented.

Wrong again. The picture control settings has no effect on NEF. It's just metadata that is understood only by the raw converter. It can use the metadata to tweak the NEF to produce a real image. There is no image but just a bunch of red, green and blue coloured sensels (no other colours) that need demosaicing and interpolation to produce something that can be viewed. That's why it is called raw.

So in conclusion, you claimed that my article has LOTS of WRONG info but you can only point one that even back-fired at you. That's funny.

[dtmateojr]

Even the director of National Geographic agrees with me :-)

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/26/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

[Kym]

If you look at our NTP Learning Plan http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Learning_Plan_Details#Structure
we start noobs off in JPEG then move to raw once they have got a handle on the basics.
But that should mean no more than 2 months from nothing to using raw.

Mum and Dad point and click "instamatic" people should only use JPEG, but we are talking about people who want to learn the art here not kids taking selfies etc.

Just a clarification, JPEG stores data as luminescence and two chroma values that are then rendered at RGB.

[arthurking83]

Wrong again. The picture control settings has no effect on NEF. It's just metadata that is understood only by the raw converter. It can use the metadata to tweak the NEF to produce a real image. There is no image but just a bunch of red, green and blue coloured sensels (no other colours) that need demosaicing and interpolation to produce something that can be viewed. That's why it is called raw.


Going from these statements, I suspected .... and now you've confirmed that you don't really understand what the jpg file format really is!
The other point you should note is that while the raw file format is 'in effect' a collection of data as described, this is a simplistic view of it.
Again, it appears you don't have a full understanding of what the raw file format is also!



.... So in conclusion, you claimed that my article has LOTS of WRONG info but you can only point one that even back-fired at you. That's funny.

It appears to me that you have a need for winning any discussion you enter into .. which is not the way discussions should work.
Discussions are for the purpose of enlightening others with information that should be unbiased(ie. not opinion).
If you don't fully understand what data a raw file actually contains, or how jpg images actually work, I recommend that you do a bit more research on the topics .. and then present your opinions.

This thread isn't the place to discuss all those topics.

While the Nikon Picture Controls can be relevant to the thread title, further discussion into the depths of how they work are best made in another thread
If you want more info on what those image formats actually are, and how they work .. start a new thread.
If you want to discuss the merits of your article .. again, start your own thread .. but be mindful to keep any links to your site relevant to the topic in any future threads you enter into.

[dtmateojr]

Going from these statements, I suspected .... and now you've confirmed that you don't really understand what the jpg file format really is!
The other point you should note is that while the raw file format is 'in effect' a collection of data as described, this is a simplistic view of it.
Again, it appears you don't have a full understanding of what the raw file format is also!




It appears to me that you have a need for winning any discussion you enter into .. which is not the way discussions should work.
Discussions are for the purpose of enlightening others with information that should be unbiased(ie. not opinion).
If you don't fully understand what data a raw file actually contains, or how jpg images actually work, I recommend that you do a bit more research on the topics .. and then present your opinions.

This thread isn't the place to discuss all those topics.

While the Nikon Picture Controls can be relevant to the thread title, further discussion into the depths of how they work are best made in another thread
If you want more info on what those image formats actually are, and how they work .. start a new thread.
If you want to discuss the merits of your article .. again, start your own thread .. but be mindful to keep any links to your site relevant to the topic in any future threads you enter into.

What's interesting here is that you seem to be the one who thinks that other people's opinions and experiences are wrong. The thread topic is getting it right in camera. Getting it right in camera means differently to different people. For me it includes shooting in jpeg. Now why the hell would you object to that? You were the one who stirred the pot mate. Be ready to defend your opinion. I have proven mine with photos.

You and Ricktas think that shooting in jpeg is stupid. Prove that. Show us your raw shots. Show us the superiority of your method.

[dtmateojr]

If you look at our NTP Learning Plan http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=New_To_Photography:Learning_Plan_Details#Structure
we start noobs off in JPEG then move to raw once they have got a handle on the basics.
But that should mean no more than 2 months from nothing to using raw.

Mum and Dad point and click "instamatic" people should only use JPEG, but we are talking about people who want to learn the art here not kids taking selfies etc.

Just a clarification, JPEG stores data as luminescence and two chroma values that are then rendered at RGB.

Yeah, because two months is all it takes to master exposure, composition and practically the whole act of shooting. The only way to move forward is countless hours in front of another dumb box fixing the mistakes during shooting because you thought that two months is all it takes for a noob ... this is getting even more ridiculous.

[arthurking83]

What's interesting here is that you seem to be the one who thinks that other people's opinions and experiences are wrong. ...... .

When I have the time(probably this coming weekend .. if you want, I'll start a new thread to prove that your opinion is wrong .. and that the facts that I have gathered are less wrong.

While this thread is about getting it right in camera, discussions about the internal workings of different file types are OT for this thread.

[ricktas]

Even the director of National Geographic agrees with me :-)

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/26/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

From that article "That being said, I would encourage beginning photographers to avoid shooting in raw." my bold and my underline. Yes JPG has it's place but it is not the BEST format to use. Surely we want the very best data, for the highest quality final print, and jpg by its very nature, being a lossy format, is not the one to use. So the National Geographic director is agreeing with us, not you. Kym pointed out in his post above (post #69) about our NTP and starting in JPG as a beginner and moving on from there, and you called it ridiculous, but then you quote an article as agreeing with you and yet he is saying the same as Kym.

I am wondering if you just like to argue the point, for the sake of an argument. Your sensor size thread and now this.

[Dug]

I think defining getting it right in camera in the broadest sense, can best be summed up by "having a plan and a vision".
If you use your camera to execute that plan, then regardless of file type, if you find the end result (edited or not) is not wanting for anything you could have done better with the camera, then you got it right in camera.

Personally if I wanted jpeg's as the end result, I would still shoot them in RAW and edit them on an image by image basis then process as Jpeg , rather that using the cameras preset processing method.
Takes longer, but I get as much enjoyment from a session of processing images as taking them, its an extra element to the creative process.

[dtmateojr]

From that article "That being said, I would encourage beginning photographers to avoid shooting in raw." my bold and my underline. Yes JPG has it's place but it is not the BEST format to use. Surely we want the very best data, for the highest quality final print, and jpg by its very nature, being a lossy format, is not the one to use. So the National Geographic director is agreeing with us, not you. Kym pointed out in his post above (post #69) about our NTP and starting in JPG as a beginner and moving on from there, and you called it ridiculous, but then you quote an article as agreeing with you and yet he is saying the same as Kym.

I am wondering if you just like to argue the point, for the sake of an argument. Your sensor size thread and now this.

If you read my article, that's exactly what I said. You don't even have to read much because the first two blocks covered that. For a photographer, you can't seem to see words very well. Selective blindness?

And by Kym's definition, a beginner is classified as one with less than two months of experience? Well then, let's have Sir King Arthur here who looks like an expert show us how it's done...if he is not scared to show his expert raw shots. Surely he would have more than two months of experience and it is safe to assume that he is an expert in raw editing. Bring it on Arthur and educate me with your shots.

For the record, everybody backed down from that sensor thread including Arthur who posted major bloopers. Why don't you comment on that and let's see how far you go.

[ricktas]

...

For the record, everybody backed down from that sensor thread including Arthur who posted major bloopers. Why don't you comment on that and let's see how far you go.

I actually think everyone got sick of trying to present their point of view and having it shot down, so rather than backing down, they just gave up trying to express their opinions, and having their facts rebutted by crap. However this time round, for the record, I have gotten sick of your name calling and lack of acceptance of others points of view. BANNED

[snappysi]

i just read the opinions and replies here over the last coupe of pages and think that one thing is essentially missing.. if i am correct. That is that whilst "getting it right in camera" can absolutely be done in camera with no external manipulation and be straight out of camera in jpeg format, for most people, some external manipulation is required. Be it because there is no other way to physically get the image you are after or because the "in camera" is not quite right. With this in mind... there is no way you would use jpeg for this route as you are starting with less information.. it would be crazy. I am not saying either way is better or worse, its up to the individual to decide what works best for them and there individual situation, but at the very least you want to giver yourself the best start to get yourself the best possible finish. That's just logical.
Again, jpeg and raw have there places, but you must use each in the place that best serves what they have to offer....
^^^ Thats all my own opinion of course.... but i would think most would agree...

Simon.

[Mark L]

.... but i would think most would agree...


Glad you said most.;)
Some people won't agree on anything.
mmmm, not sure I agree with that actually.

[arthurking83]

.... Well then, let's have Sir King Arthur here who looks like an expert show us how it's done...if he is not scared to show his expert raw shots. Surely he would have more than two months of experience and it is safe to assume that he is an expert in raw editing. Bring it on Arthur and educate me with your shots.

.....

FWIW: to anyone that cares for more boring info regarding formats and file types .. the other thread (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?134050-Getting-it-right-in-camera%28II%29-image-file-formats)

Some of my raw files will eventually be displayed(when time allows) .. hopefully tomorrow or later tonight.

Like Rick said .. banned!
This particular member has a history of just being argumentative and contrary ON OTHER FORA too!! .. and not just here, and doesn't seem to have the ability to reason.
He has been explained on numerous occasions that his opinions are in fact not facts, but just his opinions on these other fora as well .. not just here.
Some of the concepts he writes about are just generalisations, and are almost correct, but then he continues on other lines of points that have no basis of fact, or are just plain confusing.
eg. the way raw files are displayed vs jpg files.

ps. Rick. I don't mind my replies being shot down or argued against and even shown to be wrong .. but only if they are backed up with facts and not opinions(or delusions).

[Kym]

The sad thing is that on the other fora he had a valid point; but got hung up on another issue.
The problem is stating things as fact when they are opinion and not allowing other opinions.

Like - beginners must shoot JPEG ...
well I agree in the very early learning process, but as soon the the beginner has a handle on composition, exposure and depth of field there is no reason to stay with JPEG.
As soon as a beginner can get into processing raw they will grasp what used to happen in a dark room and they will learn quickly.

[ameerat42]

Glad you said most.;)
Some people won't agree on anything.
mmmm, not sure I agree with that actually.

(Pssst! Mark. Just agree not to agree - with yourself:rolleyes:)

[ricktas]

(Pssst! Mark. Just agree not to agree - with yourself:rolleyes:)

I always agree with myself, the problem is the other person in my head, doesn't. :eek:

[Mark L]

(Pssst! Mark. Just agree not to agree - with yourself:rolleyes:)
I agree.
mmm, hang on.
Maybe.:confused013

There was some useful info in this thread. Some of it right, some of it not so right. It all helps (for some).
And your next thread am42 is?:)