Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Why is it so important....


Lawrence e2
11 195 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 7:59PM
I hope not

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
24 Jan 2010 8:05PM
( where's that tin 'at!??? [It's been months!] )
tomcat e2
9 6.2k 15 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 8:09PM

Quote:[It's been months!]


You need to get out more Wink
ade_mcfade e2
10 15.1k 216 England
24 Jan 2010 8:09PM
we'll see Smile

I've not read the whole thread, but I've never really understood why people get so self-righteous about getting it right in camera - as if you're a lower form of life if you have to lower yourself to do some manipulation.

That attitude sucks - you get people like that in every area of life. Purist tossers who like to look down their noses.

But in this case it's best to get it "as right as possible" in camera - things like:-

correct white balance
correct horizon
correct exposure
avoidance of distractiond
etc. etc.

All save you time when at home editing

Not such a biggy if you're doing it for fun, but you're shooting yourself in the foot time-wise if you're trying to make cash from the shots.
arhb e2
7 2.5k 68 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 8:28PM

Quote:
Record as accurately as possible what I see...


or, record what I see in a certain way, so I can use it for manipulation on a computer.
I enjoy digital photography because you can work beyond the camera, but that doesn't mean I don't want to be a good photographer.
User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
24 Jan 2010 8:29PM

Quote:You need to get out more

( I do Adrian - but you're never there!! )

You make a good point Ade...


Quote:correct white balance
correct horizon
correct exposure
avoidance of distractions



If one is shooting digital then post-production is inevitable.

Shooting film however requires a different approach - and different considerations - to achieve those key points that Keith identified (so correctly) on page one,
LensYews e2
6 1.3k 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 8:30PM

Quote:That attitude sucks - you get people like that in every area of life. Purist tossers who like to look down their noses.


I suspect that only accounts for a tiny percentage, for most it will be fear of computers and not understanding how to post-process an image, or understand why its necessary when the film they are or were used to taking is sent off to a lab and returned as a finished print.
tomcat e2
9 6.2k 15 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2010 8:44PM

Quote:( I do Adrian - but you're never there!! )



Touche Mike
User_Removed 10 17.9k 8 Norway
24 Jan 2010 9:10PM
Threeche mon ami!!!

( I speak it fluently!... )

Wink
SuziBlue e2
12 16.2k 10 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 9:25PM
Sometimes they're straight out of camera. Sometimes I like combining images with manipulation. It's like painting: discovering nuances in an image and having new ideas about interpretation and colour. They develop into images as I work on them. I do like having the facilities to paint an idea into an image or bring out new ideas in an old photo.
rowarrior e2
7 4.4k 9 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 9:56PM
I find that often the people that preach that it has to be 'right in camera' and has 'absolutely no manipulation' are those that have all sorts of settings on their jpegs, such as saturation, sharpening etc, which are, of course, manupulation. They get most miffed if you point that out too, especially when you also point out that in those cases you have let the camera dictate all those things and it's the same every time, as opposed to the finer nuances and differences you can get processing them yourself. However, I think, as several others have said, that fear of that there computery thing plays a large part in this dogmatic approach...
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
24 Jan 2010 10:04PM
Katy for me 90% in camera is good enough, especially using film. The other 10 involves the removal of dust spots, dodging and burning and so on.
fraser e2
10 631 14 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 11:39PM

Quote:Hi Fraser.I think your photos are over manipulated,eg the sky in your last upload


Thanks for your helpful contribution Lawrence. I'm still working on my PS skills Tongue

I can understand the no-editing attitude from journos and record photographers. I can also understand why people can't be bothered spending time pfaffing about on the pc if that's not their thing but photography, for me, is about trying to bring a little creative slant to my life (I'm a scientist and engineer). I want to do more than just record what I see - I want to bring my interpretation to it. If I get an image straight from the camera that I like fine and dandy, but if it needs a bit of manipulation I'm happy to indulge. I'm not going to tie my own hands because of some self-imposed rule.

And if you think Ansel Adams images weren't "manipulated" in the darkroom, despite everything he knew about getting it right in-camera, I'd suggest you read his autobiography.
rowarrior e2
7 4.4k 9 Scotland
24 Jan 2010 11:55PM

Quote:Katy for me 90% in camera is good enough, especially using film. The other 10 involves the removal of dust spots, dodging and burning and so on.


Yes, it wasn't really a dig at anyone in the thread, just an observation from the majority of people I've met that have stuck with this that they only ever re-size for upload in PS or to enter in comps or whatever. You probably manipulate in post processing more than me if you dodge and burn Smile (although I did learn about that recently lol)
keith selmes
11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
25 Jan 2010 12:01AM
Taking the scene exactly how I saw it isn't always that straightforward.
We have to practice seeing the scene as the camera will take it, which often isn't at all how we see it.
We see a captivating scene, but as photographers we have to spot see the ghastly power cables that our brain filtered out.
We don't have a power cable filter (if only!) on the camera and there's no angle that will get the scene and miss them out.

What I might do, in that example, is file the raw as a factual record of what was really there, then edit out those damn cables to produce what I really saw, and then maybe do some more fiddly stuff with curves or levels to get what I'd like to see. Or it might be a case of changing the mood. If I want to. Or not.

The other day I moved a horse. Stupid horse was standing in the wrong place. Moving a wild horse in a photo is a lot easier than moving one in real life. Safer too.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.