[MSL]

I don't want to really be spending alot of time creating something out of nothing so I am concentrating on how to take images with filters etc and try more for the "get it right in camera" approach.

I'm not sure filters will get you where you want to go any faster. Even within a camera you can tweak an image a lot just by changing the lighting setting (i.e. the light source the camera thinks is being used to take the image). Once you get a handle on how to tweak the lighting, contrast and sharpness you may not need to do more than a crop. None of this takes more than a few minutes.

Also, some lenses are great out of the camera, and some lenses will always need tweaking in post-processing no matter how you set the camera.

[jatrax]

I don't want to really be spending alot of time creating something out of nothing so I am concentrating on how to take images with filters etc and try more for the "get it right in camera" approach.

There is often a line of thought that using software to process or develop an image means NOT getting it right in the camera. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. An image that is "right" in the camera can be improved by a good development process. But an image that is not "right" is just a poor image, no matter how much work is done in software. I think any good photographer's goal is to "get it right in camera", but that doesn't mean the job is complete.

My goal is to produce the best possible image that can be made in the camera and then take it further through careful development. Declaring I am finished once the shutter clicks is IMHO just stopping before the work is done.

Sorry for the rant but I've run into photographers at shows that think their work is golden because they magically "get it right" in the camera. And don't hesitate to tell anyone who will listen. Ansel Adams didn't stop working on an image when the shutter clicked. He considered that only the beginning. Why should we think any different?

But I agree, there is no point in learning post processing until you have got it "right" in the camera. You cannot create something out of nothing.

[AgentL]

There is often a line of thought that using software to process or develop an image means NOT getting it right in the camera. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. An image that is "right" in the camera can be improved by a good development process. But an image that is not "right" is just a poor image, no matter how much work is done in software. I think any good photographer's goal is to "get it right in camera", but that doesn't mean the job is complete.

My goal is to produce the best possible image that can be made in the camera and then take it further through careful development. Declaring I am finished once the shutter clicks is IMHO just stopping before the work is done.

Sorry for the rant but I've run into photographers at shows that think their work is golden because they magically "get it right" in the camera. And don't hesitate to tell anyone who will listen. Ansel Adams didn't stop working on an image when the shutter clicked. He considered that only the beginning. Why should we think any different?

But I agree, there is no point in learning post processing until you have got it "right" in the camera. You cannot create something out of nothing.

I agree with you here. I think the goal is to know how to get the look you want, even before you take the photo. If you can pre-visualize the scene in the way you want it to look, plus you know your camera well enough to understand what it's going to give you at a given exposure, then still more you know how to use editing software, then it ends up being very fast and effortless. Those three things are like a digital triangle, not just exposure triangle but workflow triangle. On the other hand, if you don't know your gear then you'll end up with files that you struggle with. The problem is, many of us never use a single camera long enough to know its output by heart.

[MikeMcE]

Plan your shot, then shoot your plan. In simple words, What are you trying to get, how do I get there. Make your shooting simple and fast.


Hang up and DRIVE!

[Hawkfan]

I checked out Fastone. There is no setting for EV. I believe the more involved programs have that so maybe I will check out another. Maybe I am looking for something slightly more equipped.

[tibbitts]

I checked out Fastone. There is no setting for EV. I believe the more involved programs have that so maybe I will check out another. Maybe I am looking for something slightly more equipped.

EV? I don't actually recall EV in the other packages I have, at least not by that name. "Exposure Value" in what sense - you mean like exposure compensation on a camera?

Faststone is amazing, but as I've mentioned I've had difficulties getting decent results from raw conversions with it. It has a kind of exposure compensation you set for raw conversions, what I have to set (seemingly excessive) negative values to keep from blowing out highlights. And ultimately I do want a selection tool with feathering.