[Wheatfield]

Because there are types of photography that make it impossible to be deliberate. It's considered rude to ask the striker sprinting past me on the way to scoring a goal to pause while I change settings to account for him running from shade into direct sunlight. It's sometimes a necessity to get it close in camera and touch it up in post.

So rather than trying "to get the best you can" (that is the direct quote you are responding to), you are advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part?

Why didn't you have your settings right to begin with? It's not like as if you weren't aware there was a race going on right beside you. You appear to be advocating away from getting "the best you can" in favor of tolerating junk?

[reh321]

Because there are types of photography that make it impossible to be deliberate. It's considered rude to ask the striker sprinting past me on the way to scoring a goal to pause while I change settings to account for him running from shade into direct sunlight. It's sometimes a necessity to get it close in camera and touch it up in post.

It seems to depend a lot on how you have adjusted the camera to start with. The ‘JPEG engine’ of a modern Pentax camera is very adjustable. At one time I carried a Canon Elph around with me, but I got a Pentax Q-7, because the Elph insisted on “fixing” the WB, and frankly ruining photos I took at a Madrigal Dinner because it ‘fixed’ the candlelight atmosphere the set designers had worked so hard to achieve.

In your example, except in the rare case when the player is half in sunlight and half in shade, my experience has been that a properly adjusted ‘JPEG engine’ and metering system will quickly respond to changes from daylight to shade, and will quickly change levels and WB so that avoiding having everything look like it was taken in sunlight {except for the lack of shadows} is the biggest problem.’

[gatorguy]

So rather than trying "to get the best you can" (that is the direct quote you are responding to), you are advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part?

Why didn't you have your settings right to begin with? It's not like as if you weren't aware there was a race going on right beside you. You appear to be advocating away from getting "the best you can" in favor of tolerating junk?

Bill. I'd have to agree with Thor at least under the scenario he uses. When there's action involved in a difficult lighting situation there's often no time to "get the settings right in camera" without missing the shot altogether. I've had a series while hiking where I had my settings correct for the nice early morning sunny shoreline image I was taking, and then out of the corner of my eye see a flying or diving bird 90 degrees or more turned away from me. I don't have time to change anything other than my focus point if I want to capture him. That happens regularly. So how do I deal with that? TAv, max the ISO @12,200 and keep the shutter speed up higher than I'd typically use if I intended to do only landscapes, 1/2500 at least. Once the sun is up mid-morning I can dial things back. Whatever I'm dealt I'll fix it in post if necessary as he said

So nobody advocated junk photos, we're still trying to "get the best we can" based on what we're doing. I don't do junk unless it's a junkyard shoot, which can be amazingly interesting with a model or two. Oh, and then I have time to dial in settings.

[texandrews]

I will jump in at this point to say that any further zealotry about the topic, w/o any regard to different shooting conditions and styles, or collegial consideration of fellow members, and extraneous remarks casting aspersions on said styles and fellow photographers, will get at least a thread ban for that individual, and potentially more.

Enough already. We've been through this before. We all know the rules. Stop now---and possibly consider an in-thread apology. First and only warning.

[Wheatfield]

Bill. I'd have to agree with Thor at least under the scenario he uses. When there's action involved in a difficult lighting situation there's often no time to "get the settings right in camera" without missing the shot altogether. I've had a series while hiking where I had my settings correct for the nice early morning sunny shoreline image I was taking, and then out of the corner of my eye see a flying or diving bird 90 degrees or more turned away from me. I don't have time to change anything other than my focus point if I want to capture him. That happens regularly. So how do I deal with that? TAv, max the ISO @12,200 and keep the shutter speed up higher than I'd typically use if I intended to do only landscapes, 1/2500 at least. Once the sun is up mid-morning I can dial things back. Whatever I'm dealt I'll fix it in post if necessary as he said

So nobody advocated junk photos, we're still trying to "get the best we can" based on what we're doing. I don't do junk unless it's a junkyard shoot, which can be amazingly interesting with a model or two. Oh, and then I have time to dial in settings.

OK, lets discuss this a bit further. Under the scenario given, knowing that pretty much any camera made over the past few decades is capable of automatic metering and exposure, why is the photographer fiddling with settings when he knows that milliseconds count? Wouldn't using one of the automatic exposure modes be the better method of getting things right in this scenario?
Personally, I think the example given is a red herring given it's likelihood in the real world for the vast majority of us, including the ones who photograph track meets.
In your example, what you have may be the best you can do, and you are going to have to accept that your image is going to be compromised.
OTOH, why haven't you prepared for the stuff that can happen in a moment at the expense of something that develops slowly enough that time is on your side with?

Either way, it's beside the point as these examples classify as outliers for most people, yourself included, I expect.

Every single time I have been asked to fix something in post processing for a person, it has been because they have been lazy or unaware, plain and simple. It has been because they didn't pay attention to their background and have a power pole growing out of someone's head, or a person walking through the background of their bridal portrait or some other easily seen and fixed problem that is now a life ending issue for the image and the person's reputation as a photographer.
The reason for needing me to fix their work has always been a variation on the same theme: "I missed seeing that".
Change backgrounds by moving sideways a foot, wait a few moments before tripping the shutter to let your background clear off.
Why did the photographer miss seeing that? Because they weren't paying attention, because they were too lazy to take the few seconds in the moment to fix a problem that can take a significant amount of time to fix in post (removing a person from a background convincingly isn't always as easy as a few strokes with the clone brush).
Even something as simple as picking up a piece of litter from the background is going to save time in post processing and remove a step that may end up being less than convincing, and if one is using that background for a portrait series, will save the photographer from doing the same retouch job multiple times.
It will also make the photographer a better citizen of the world, something that seems to be an endangered species these days.

My point is this: If you accept mediocrity at the moment of taking the picture, you are accepting mediocrity for your imagery. Call me arrogant, vain or whatever else you want, but my attitude is don't accept mediocrity from yourself. Do the best you can, and always take the best you can and try to do better.

We have so many people come onto this and other forums asking how they can do this or that better, how do they become better photographers, how do they get better landscapes or portraits, what's the best set up for taking pictures of bugs or whatever catches their fancy.

These people get it. They are trying to do better. They aren't accepting mediocrity. They want to start with the best image capture they can get, and whether they know it or not at the time, they will find out that the moment of capture is the moment that decides if the image is going to be a failure, a mediocre image or a success.

The moment of capture is the one that defines the rest of the picture. Get the focus wrong and you don't get to fix it in post, get the exposure too far wrong and you don't get to fix it in post, and even if you do manage to fix it, there is going to be some quality compromise. Get the composition wrong and you are going to have to crop it to fix it in post. This may or may not matter depending on the final use, but why not get the composition correct to begin with and save yourself the trouble?
If nothing else, make sure the crop is at least semi planned and not thrust on you as part of a salvage operation when you get home.
And yes, I'm sure we've all been there, myself included.

If the light is changing so fast that you can't keep up in manual mode. switch over to automatic as the camera is more capable that you are in this scenario.
On this one, been there, done that. I was hired to photograph the Saskatchewan Music Awards one year, which meant i was photographing half a dozen different bands performing on stage. The lighting was pretty wild, they were changing colour and intensity on the stage quickly enough that I couldn't keep up with manual exposure, which at the time was the only exposure mode I had ever used to any extent. I tossed my brand new Pentax LX onto automatic and trusted the technology.
It turned out to be the correct decision and it allowed me to get much better images than I would have gotten using manual exposure as all the negatives shot were eminently printable.

---------- Post added May 4th, 2022 at 12:02 PM ----------

I think you mixing post processing and photoshopping together, while for me those are two different things. I'm under illusion that many RAW editors don't even allow adding rubber ducks into shots. At least I don't know how that could be done in Capture 1 that I use. I do have a programm where I could do that, but I need to process the shot to jpg or tiff first.

I tend to lump the two together in my thought process as well. For me, the RAW conversion is the first step of post processing. If I get everything right at the moment of exposure, my post processing is raw conversion, resize to purpose and convert to profile and color space to purpose, then save.
If I don't get everything right, then the process has more steps, sometimes a lot more steps...
To me, post processing is everything that happens to the image once I import it into lightroom and decide it's worth doing something with. For me the "post" in post processing is post (after) image capture. To me, it's everything I do to take that file of ones and zeros and convert it into something that I can hold in my hand, look at and say "Bill, you really aren't very good at this stuff are you?"

[iheiramo]

I tend to lump the two together in my thought process as well. For me, the RAW conversion is the first step of post processing. If I get everything right at the moment of exposure, my post processing is raw conversion, resize to purpose and convert to profile and color space to purpose, then save.
If I don't get everything right, then the process has more steps, sometimes a lot more steps...

Yes, I've noticed some do that and some of us don't. Maybe terms should be more clearly defined, because different meanings lead to unnecessary arguing when one side expect what other didn't say.

Personally I only do RAW conversion and don't go further with post processing. Photoshoppin the images is not among my interests in photography.

[reh321]

If I don't get everything right, then the process has more steps, sometimes a lot more steps...
To me, post processing is everything that happens to the image once I import it into lightroom and decide it's worth doing something with. For me the "post" in post processing is post (after) image capture. To me, it's everything I do to take that file of ones and zeros and convert it into something that i can hold in my hand, look at and say "Bill, you really aren't very good at this stuff are you?"

Yes.

On a “generic” {not for specific brand} photo website, someone posted a photo once and asked how to improve it.

After a series of posts talked about ‘cloning’ out a branch, cropping out ‘uninteresting’ parts, etc, I could hold my pen no longer.
If the photographer had just been ‘more deliberate’ and stepped forward a few steps, he would have been past the offending branch and the ugliness which would now be out of camera range, no longer needing cropping, and he would have had a much better view of the cute shoppes which were {everyone, including the photographer, agreed} the most interesting part of the photo. But since we don’t have a time machine, anything he did now would be equivalent to placing a Bandaid on a wound that required surgery.

[Wheatfield]

Yes, I've noticed some do that and some of us don't. Maybe terms should be more clearly defined, because different meanings lead to unnecessary arguing when one side expect what other didn't say.

Personally I only do RAW conversion and don't go further with post processing. Photoshoppin the images is not among my interests in photography.

Agreed on many levels, but this means I need to get as much right in camera as I can. My ideal image is convert the raw file, resize to purpose and save as for final use, and this is what I strive for.
I just did a really quick google search for the definition of post processing, and you are right, there really isn't a clear one in that some differentiate raw conversion from post processing. I don't think the two can really be separated simply because the conversion process itself has such a profound effect on the finished image.

[ThorSanchez]

So rather than trying "to get the best you can" (that is the direct quote you are responding to), you are advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part?

Why didn't you have your settings right to begin with? It's not like as if you weren't aware there was a race going on right beside you. You appear to be advocating away from getting "the best you can" in favor of tolerating junk?

Of course what I was saying was that you get the settings right for what you expect, and sometimes changing conditions mean that you need to do a lot of work when you get home.

[smcrae]

The perfect shot is the one that looks the way you wanted it to. If it doesn’t, you have the choice of processing it into what you wanted, or going out and taking more shots. Personally, I tend to prefer the latter,

[reh321]

Of course what I was saying was that you get the settings right for what you expect, and sometimes changing conditions mean that you need to do a lot of work when you get home.

I automate as much as I can.
With my K-30 and “Q”s I tend to adjust contrast {up - at least for adapted lenses} and sharpness on JPEGs produced by the experts, but in ‘P’ or ‘TAv’ mode, my KP settings almost always produce the JPEGs I expected/wanted - it automatically adjusts to changing conditions and leaves me no work when I get home.

[gatorguy]

OK, lets discuss this a bit further. Under the scenario given, knowing that pretty much any camera made over the past few decades is capable of automatic metering and exposure, why is the photographer fiddling with settings when he knows that milliseconds count? Wouldn't using one of the automatic exposure modes be the better method of getting things right in this scenario?
Personally, I think the example given is a red herring given it's likelihood in the real world for the vast majority of us, including the ones who photograph track meets.
In your example, what you have may be the best you can do, and you are going to have to accept that your image is going to be compromised.
OTOH, why haven't you prepared for the stuff that can happen in a moment at the expense of something that develops slowly enough that time is on your side with?

Every single time I have been asked to fix something in post processing for a person, it has been because they have been lazy or unaware, plain and simple. "

Which automatic exposure mode do you suggest for my at-daybreak visits to the marsh Bill, considering some of my raw photos will be of static objects, some in sun, others in shade, some in very contrasty mixed light, and some on-the-move, and frequently with no time to do much of anything beyond frame and focus or miss the shot entirely? TAv is my choice. And is that scenario really unusual? It is not. It's a regular occurrence for any of us doing birds-in-flight and wildlife and general nature all in the same session. Even a sunrise in a marsh has only fleeting moments in light and doesn't "develop slowly with time on my side". Many of my best images have been the lightly-if-planned-at-all but not totally unanticipated ones. Bet yours have been too.

As for post-processing I'm shocked at your suggestion the photographer is lazy or unaware every time a photo needs work after the shot. That claim doesn't even sound plausible.

Two weeks ago I had to go thru a number of headshots to deliver 6 images for each of 9 different employees of a marketing firm and captured in office settings. One of the employees had severe acne, at least on the day of the shoot. Was I being lazy with the headshot planning and ignorant of some camera setting that would have fixed the skin condition? Hardly. They required post processing to make them presentable for the client. Are headshots unusual? Hardly. Is the need to soften wrinkles, remove pimples, or smooth a shirt unusual. Again, hardly. This shoot was typical.

You mention a concert you shot some years ago. I do a LOT of performance shoots, some in bars, some on stage, some at outdoor venues, some in concert halls. I go in with ideas, sometimes even with a written game plan, and other times with not a
lot to go on. Are you claiming you never had a need to post-process any of your performance images, a little dodge here, burn there, or remove a stray hand from the audience that intruded on an otherwise properly anticipated stage moment? If you haven't those shots are not the best you could do for a client IMO. If you did were you lazy and unaware?

I think you're being a bit simplistic if you claim the only reason any photographer should need to resort to post work is from laziness or ignorance alone.

[Wheatfield]

Which automatic exposure mode do you suggest for my at-daybreak visits to the marsh Bill, considering some photos will be of static objects, some in sun, others in shade, and some on-the-move, and frequently with no time to do anything beyond frame and focus? And is that scenario really unusual? It is not. It's a regular occurrence for any of us doing birds-in-flight and wildlife.

As for post-processing I'm shocked at your suggestion the photographer is lazy or unaware every time a photo needs post work. Two weeks ago I had to go thru a number of headshots to deliver 6 images for each of 9 different employees of a marketing firm. One of the employees had severe acne, at least on the day of the shoot. Was I being lazy with the headshots and unaware of some camera setting that would have fixed the skin condition? Hardly. They required post processing to make them presentable for the client. Are headshots unusual? Hardly. Is the need to soften wrinkles, remove pimples, or smooth a shirt unusual. Again, it is not.

I do a LOT of performance shoots, some in bars, some on stage, some at outdoor venues, some in concert halls. Are you claiming you never had a need to post-process any of your performance images, a little dodge here, burn there, or remove a stray hand from the audience that intruded on an otherwise properly anticipated stage moment? If you haven't those shots are not the best you could do for a client IMO.

What I'm saying (again) is that if you don't strive to get the best you can at the moment of exposure, you are compromising the final image, possibly to the point of unusability.

Minimizing post processing is not some sort of cardinal sin. Lord knows as a portrait photographer myself I know that post processing is not a negotiable to the genre and I do tons of it.

This is NOT fixing the image in post, contrary to what you want me to have said. That is a standard and accepted part of the process.

What us fixing in post is trying to salvage an image that a lazy eyed photographer brings to me because of something he failed to do as part of the image capture process.

As an aside, I had a photographer a few years back bring me images that were shot under absolutely flat unratioed light. He wanted me to "fix" the images to lend them some drama as his client hated what he had done.
Is that merely post processing or is that fixing?

[Sam_I_am]

I will jump in at this point to say that any further zealotry about the topic, w/o any regard to different shooting conditions and styles, or collegial consideration of fellow members, and extraneous remarks casting aspersions on said styles and fellow photographers, will get at least a thread ban for that individual, and potentially more.

Enough already. We've been through this before. We all know the rules. Stop now---and possibly consider an in-thread apology. First and only warning.

Thank you kind sir, I was going to message a moderator until I read your post.

---------- Post added 05-04-22 at 04:45 PM ----------

When I was in grad school {many years ago}, I spent a night in Virginia City NV.
There was a sign there on a building where Sam Clemens {“Mark Twain”} had been newspaper editor.
An ‘artist’ would remove the sign and the utility wires to “improve” the photo -
to make the building look more like it did in his day.
I would rather use a “SOOC” view that shows it as it looks today.
Different photographers tell different stories.

My wife and I spent a day there on a first anniversary trip. She shot two rolls of b&w to capture the essence of the town. Many times she was able to remove most, if not all of anything modern, by just moving around until until she had the right angle.

[gatorguy]

What I'm saying (again) is that if you don't strive to get the best you can at the moment of exposure, you are compromising the final image, possibly to the point of unusability.

Minimizing post processing is not some sort of cardinal sin. Lord knows as a portrait photographer myself I know that post processing is not a negotiable to the genre and I do tons of it.

This is NOT fixing the image in post, contrary to what you want me to have said. That is a standard and accepted part of the process.

What us fixing in post is trying to salvage an image that a lazy eyed photographer brings to me because of something he failed to do as part of the image capture process.

As an aside, I had a photographer a few years back bring me images that were shot under absolutely flat unratioed light. He wanted me to "fix" the images to lend them some drama as his client hated what he had done.
Is that merely post processing or is that fixing?

So that puts it back to you suggesting one or more of our members considered junk photos to be acceptable, and again I say no one claimed they were. We're all (for the most part) striving for the same thing you are, to be the photographers we're capable of. We're not lazy.

I think you just didn't realize we're on the same page.