In-Camera vs Software, what's your preference?

jwiles · 08-25-2010, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Well, my +1 was mostly for Marc's comment, not the insulting and ill-informed part, which is a bit harsh :-)

But yes, I still roll my eyes at several common statements. And, I also sigh.

Oh, even bad art is art.

True!

Marc Sabatella · 08-25-2010, 10:35 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by jwiles

Anyway, the reason I posted this was because I'm seeing a trend towards not caring so much in the field and trying to make up for the lack of craftsmanship during PP.

In which field to do you see this trend, and what is your evidence that it exists?

Quote:

Perhaps it doesn't matter - what's your opinion?

My opinion is that you're arguing a straw man. There's no one I have ever met in my entire life who doesn't strive to get their pictures as right as possible in camera. This alleged plethora of people who don't bother doing that, I would claim doesn't exist. I think the tendency is to mistakenly assume - as you explicitly did in your original message - that anyone doing PP is doing so as a substitute for getting it as right as possible in camera, rather than simply using it enhance a picture that's already as good as the camera's rudimentary controls allow. So one sees all the PP going and and erroneously concludes that people are not trying to get it at right as possible in camera. If you have other evidence that there are a lot of people who don't make that effort and are demonstrating this "lack of craftsmanship", I'd be curious to hear it.

twitch · 08-25-2010, 11:55 PM

I'm in the "Both" camp too. Creating photos is a two step process, neglecting one or the other is not going to give the best possible result. I care enough to want the best results my limited skills will give me

**Ash** · 08-26-2010, 12:18 AM

It matters - both ways, just as most have been saying.
Get it as right as possible in camera, to make as little adjustment as possible in PP to create the best work of art possible. It still means I do a considerable amount of PP, but it's usually in manipulating colours and lighting (dodging and burning).

Jasvox · 08-26-2010, 12:46 AM

Any good photographer, professional or amateur worth his salt should be striving to get the best photo each and every time through thoughtful preparation and correct theory/practice. The idea of someone just throwing shit into Acme PP software and hoping for the best is a bit ridiculous. PP software is there to help us get the most out of our digital files, therefore producing the most pleasing effect as possible. Sure, some shots look great right out of the camera and some need some help, be it very little or more than just a few minutes of tweaking to get the most desired final result. The OP 's question about which do you do seems a little black versus white to me and more of a generalization instead of a thought provoking topic. Honestly, when film was all we had, a skilled dark room developer was a very good quality to have, doesn't mean they took so-so photos and relied on developing skills to "get it right" each time.

If you're out there with your gear and have made every effort to put yourself in the position to capture wonderful photos, why wouldn't you make the same effort to make sure your composition, exposure, iso, speed, etc is just as important as anything? If a little tweaking is needed or opted for afterward to get the best outcome, no harm.

Jason

axl · 08-26-2010, 02:40 AM

software all the way. Of course I try to get it right in the camera but I always shoot RAW and then convert, PP etc. Problem is that in camera I can't achieve the look I want from my pics...

jwiles · 08-26-2010, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by axl

software all the way. Of course I try to get it right in the camera but I always shoot RAW and then convert, PP etc. Problem is that in camera I can't achieve the look I want from my pics...

Interesting. Do you do a lot of "abstract" photos (modifying colors, perspective, etc.) requiring the PP software?

Last edited by jwiles; 08-26-2010 at 01:33 PM. Reason: spelling

jwiles · 08-26-2010, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

In which field to do you see this trend, and what is your evidence that it exists?

My opinion is that you're arguing a straw man. There's no one I have ever met in my entire life who doesn't strive to get their pictures as right as possible in camera. This alleged plethora of people who don't bother doing that, I would claim doesn't exist. I think the tendency is to mistakenly assume - as you explicitly did in your original message - that anyone doing PP is doing so as a substitute for getting it as right as possible in camera, rather than simply using it enhance a picture that's already as good as the camera's rudimentary controls allow. So one sees all the PP going and and erroneously concludes that people are not trying to get it at right as possible in camera. If you have other evidence that there are a lot of people who don't make that effort and are demonstrating this "lack of craftsmanship", I'd be curious to hear it.

I've been to a number of nature photography workshops as well as journalism photo workshops in the past several months and the mix is evident. Especially if there is a contest involved. And that's what brought up my question of "is the picture you're looking at a true representation of what the photographer saw or is it PP (by, for example, changing colors)?" You assumption that I assumed all this was incorrect. It's out there and perhpas there is a split between the "partial to in-camera" and "partial to PP". Perhaps its a whole different art form.

Rupert · 08-26-2010, 01:47 PM

I have taken many thousands of shots.....and although I am an admitted amateur, I do know the process of obtaining a great shot. So in all those many thousands of shots, how many came right out of my DSLR ready to print and hang with no further processing benefit? I can count them on one hand and have five fingers left over.
Sure, I can cook a chicken on a stick out in the yard to near perfection, but why? I have everything I need to make it better right here inside. Getting it as close to possible in the RAW is indeed a requirement, but this is not a contest of simplicity......if you can use the very wonderful software available to improve your photo, by all means use it! Read up on what Ansel Adams had to say along these lines...it might surprise you.
Regards!

jwiles · 08-26-2010, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

I have taken many thousands of shots.....and although I am an admitted amateur, I do know the process of obtaining a great shot. So in all those many thousands of shots, how many came right out of my DSLR ready to print and hang with no further processing benefit? I can count them on one hand and have five fingers left over.
Sure, I can cook a chicken on a stick out in the yard to near perfection, but why? I have everything I need to make it better right here inside. Getting it as close to possible in the RAW is indeed a requirement, but this is not a contest of simplicity......if you can use the very wonderful software available to improve your photo, by all means use it! Read up on what Ansel Adams had to say along these lines...it might surprise you.
Regards!

I agree. Adams seemed to want what we have now. He was a pioneer of new things as well.

woof · 08-26-2010, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by jwiles

I agree. Adams seemed to want what we have now. He was a pioneer of new things as well.

Nice try. Adams was not a pioneer of darkroom techniques. He was a master of them. Period. All the greats did it, and they did it well.

Let's start with the Zone system. It's based upon late 19th century sensitometry studies of Hurter and Driffield. Then let's talk about the contempories of Admas - Adams was one of the founders, along with Willard Van Dyke, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Henry Swift, Sonya Noskowiak and John Paul Edwards, of Group f.64.

Now let's talk about influences: Adams was strongly influenced by Alfred Stieglitz, whom he met in 1933 and who mounted a one-man exhibition for him in 1936 at Stieglitz's An American Place gallery in New York City. Dorothea Lange and Adams collaborated on several magazine pictorials for Fortune, Time, and Life magazines, adding to his national reputation.

Yes, he was a pioneer. That said, let me give you a quote by Edward Weston.

"Our sensibilities today are not fooled by the novelty of the camera process; modern men clearly feel the individual personality of each of the authors of different photographs, although made at the same time and in the same space. We feel the personality of the photographer as clearly as that of the painter, draughtsman, or printmaker. Actually, camera and darkroom manipulations are a technique, like oil, pencil, or watercolor; and, above all, the means of expression of human personality."

cf: Edward Weston - Diego Rivera, “Edward Weston and Tina Modotti”, Mexican Folkways 2, April-May 1926. [cited in: “EW:100 – Centennial Essays in Honor of Edward Weston”, “Tina Modotti and Edward Weston: A Re-evaluation of their Photography” p. 63, Untitled 41, The Friends of Photography, Carmel, California 1986]

Now let's take this all FULL CIRCLE. As a final word in refutation of your assertion that Adams was a somehow an outlier from the crowd and represented a pioneer (and therefore was in the minority) in photo manipulation... have a look at the history of photo manipulation linked below. Remember as an aside in the course of that reading that Dorothea Lange was a strong Adams influence...

Darkroom Manipulation | Evan Baines Photography

Let's just get to they ALL did manipulation in the darkroom. Weston saw in that the thing that differentiated photographers. I suppose the failure to learn or do manipulation would likewise be a differentiator...

Let's just say it this way... all the greats did it. The fact that it is somehow more accessible does not serve somehow to make it more banal.

Respectfully submitted,

woof!

raider · 08-26-2010, 04:28 PM

interesting thread.

personally i will aim to get the right pictures the first time using the camera. If i dont get it right the first few tries, i try and try again. If all else fails, and i really want to retain that photo, i will do a simple PP but i am not thrilled by my achievement.

I am much more satisfied when i can tell myself that those great shots are done on the field. I am okay with fine tuning of the exposure using PP, however.

LucyGoosey · 08-26-2010, 04:45 PM

Just curious, how many of you have experience in a darkroom before? I did a long time ago and had to give it up b/c of the cost. But I'd argue there was more of a science to it than just pushing some mouse clicks until you get it right.

wildman · 08-26-2010, 05:07 PM

I think this is at least tangentially relevant to this thread:

I have a bird photo that has been published four times. On looking on the hard drive I have five different versions of the original raw file each one sent out to a different publication or artist.

On looking at these different versions each one is subtly different and for the life of me I can't decide which is the "best". If I tried PP on the raw file again I'm sure I would end up with yet another different version.

So for me at least there is no "getting it right the first time". From my experience there is neither a first time nor one "right" version.

The raw file is just that - raw data and within wide limits pretty much silly putty to do with it as you wish.

Marc Sabatella · 08-26-2010, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by jwiles

I've been to a number of nature photography workshops as well as journalism photo workshops in the past several months and the mix is evident.

How so? These people are paying good money to attend a workshop. That strikes me as evidence they *do* in fact care about craftsmanship. What counterevidence do you have?

Quote:

that's what brought up my question of "is the picture you're looking at a true representation of what the photographer saw or is it PP"

Again, you are setting up a distinction that doesn't exist. I use PP to help me create a "true representation of what the photographer saw", because the extremely rudimentary control over this provided by the camera cannot possibly get close enough for the discerning eye.

Quote:

It's out there and perhpas there is a split between the "partial to in-camera" and "partial to PP".

For every person you can name who does not in fact strive to get their pictures as right as they can in camera, I will have no trouble finding you 20 who do.

08-25-2010, 10:35 PM - 2 Likes	#17
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by jwiles Anyway, the reason I posted this was because I'm seeing a trend towards not caring so much in the field and trying to make up for the lack of craftsmanship during PP. In which field to do you see this trend, and what is your evidence that it exists? Quote: Perhaps it doesn't matter - what's your opinion? My opinion is that you're arguing a straw man. There's no one I have ever met in my entire life who doesn't strive to get their pictures as right as possible in camera. This alleged plethora of people who don't bother doing that, I would claim doesn't exist. I think the tendency is to mistakenly assume - as you explicitly did in your original message - that anyone doing PP is doing so as a substitute for getting it as right as possible in camera, rather than simply using it enhance a picture that's already as good as the camera's rudimentary controls allow. So one sees all the PP going and and erroneously concludes that people are not trying to get it at right as possible in camera. If you have other evidence that there are a lot of people who don't make that effort and are demonstrating this "lack of craftsmanship", I'd be curious to hear it. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 08-25-2010 at 10:44 PM.

08-26-2010, 05:07 PM	#29
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	I think this is at least tangentially relevant to this thread: I have a bird photo that has been published four times. On looking on the hard drive I have five different versions of the original raw file each one sent out to a different publication or artist. On looking at these different versions each one is subtly different and for the life of me I can't decide which is the "best". If I tried PP on the raw file again I'm sure I would end up with yet another different version. So for me at least there is no "getting it right the first time". From my experience there is neither a first time nor one "right" version. The raw file is just that - raw data and within wide limits pretty much silly putty to do with it as you wish. Last edited by wildman; 08-26-2010 at 05:18 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Social Group - Camera vs Software	jwiles	Travel, Events, and Groups	1	08-24-2010 08:38 AM
Poll - Format of Preference	cwfossil	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	16	02-13-2010 04:32 AM
Pentax camera software	philippe	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	05-09-2009 11:16 AM
Do you have a preference?	simonkit	Post Your Photos!	7	04-20-2009 11:22 AM
Used Camera no software	Firedawg	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	12-03-2007 06:42 PM

08-25-2010, 08:14 PM	#16
jwiles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK Well, my +1 was mostly for Marc's comment, not the insulting and ill-informed part, which is a bit harsh :-) But yes, I still roll my eyes at several common statements. And, I also sigh. Oh, even bad art is art. True!

08-25-2010, 11:55 PM	#18
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	I'm in the "Both" camp too. Creating photos is a two step process, neglecting one or the other is not going to give the best possible result. I care enough to want the best results my limited skills will give me

08-26-2010, 12:18 AM	#19
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It matters - both ways, just as most have been saying. Get it as right as possible in camera, to make as little adjustment as possible in PP to create the best work of art possible. It still means I do a considerable amount of PP, but it's usually in manipulating colours and lighting (dodging and burning).

08-26-2010, 12:46 AM	#20
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Any good photographer, professional or amateur worth his salt should be striving to get the best photo each and every time through thoughtful preparation and correct theory/practice. The idea of someone just throwing shit into Acme PP software and hoping for the best is a bit ridiculous. PP software is there to help us get the most out of our digital files, therefore producing the most pleasing effect as possible. Sure, some shots look great right out of the camera and some need some help, be it very little or more than just a few minutes of tweaking to get the most desired final result. The OP 's question about which do you do seems a little black versus white to me and more of a generalization instead of a thought provoking topic. Honestly, when film was all we had, a skilled dark room developer was a very good quality to have, doesn't mean they took so-so photos and relied on developing skills to "get it right" each time. If you're out there with your gear and have made every effort to put yourself in the position to capture wonderful photos, why wouldn't you make the same effort to make sure your composition, exposure, iso, speed, etc is just as important as anything? If a little tweaking is needed or opted for afterward to get the best outcome, no harm. Jason

08-26-2010, 02:40 AM	#21
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	software all the way. Of course I try to get it right in the camera but I always shoot RAW and then convert, PP etc. Problem is that in camera I can't achieve the look I want from my pics...

08-26-2010, 01:32 PM	#22
jwiles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by axl software all the way. Of course I try to get it right in the camera but I always shoot RAW and then convert, PP etc. Problem is that in camera I can't achieve the look I want from my pics... Interesting. Do you do a lot of "abstract" photos (modifying colors, perspective, etc.) requiring the PP software? Last edited by jwiles; 08-26-2010 at 01:33 PM. Reason: spelling

08-26-2010, 01:41 PM	#23
jwiles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella In which field to do you see this trend, and what is your evidence that it exists? My opinion is that you're arguing a straw man. There's no one I have ever met in my entire life who doesn't strive to get their pictures as right as possible in camera. This alleged plethora of people who don't bother doing that, I would claim doesn't exist. I think the tendency is to mistakenly assume - as you explicitly did in your original message - that anyone doing PP is doing so as a substitute for getting it as right as possible in camera, rather than simply using it enhance a picture that's already as good as the camera's rudimentary controls allow. So one sees all the PP going and and erroneously concludes that people are not trying to get it at right as possible in camera. If you have other evidence that there are a lot of people who don't make that effort and are demonstrating this "lack of craftsmanship", I'd be curious to hear it. I've been to a number of nature photography workshops as well as journalism photo workshops in the past several months and the mix is evident. Especially if there is a contest involved. And that's what brought up my question of "is the picture you're looking at a true representation of what the photographer saw or is it PP (by, for example, changing colors)?" You assumption that I assumed all this was incorrect. It's out there and perhpas there is a split between the "partial to in-camera" and "partial to PP". Perhaps its a whole different art form.

08-26-2010, 01:47 PM	#24
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	I have taken many thousands of shots.....and although I am an admitted amateur, I do know the process of obtaining a great shot. So in all those many thousands of shots, how many came right out of my DSLR ready to print and hang with no further processing benefit? I can count them on one hand and have five fingers left over. Sure, I can cook a chicken on a stick out in the yard to near perfection, but why? I have everything I need to make it better right here inside. Getting it as close to possible in the RAW is indeed a requirement, but this is not a contest of simplicity......if you can use the very wonderful software available to improve your photo, by all means use it! Read up on what Ansel Adams had to say along these lines...it might surprise you. Regards!

08-26-2010, 01:53 PM	#25
jwiles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Ohio Photos: Albums Posts: 45 Original Poster	Originally posted by Rupert I have taken many thousands of shots.....and although I am an admitted amateur, I do know the process of obtaining a great shot. So in all those many thousands of shots, how many came right out of my DSLR ready to print and hang with no further processing benefit? I can count them on one hand and have five fingers left over. Sure, I can cook a chicken on a stick out in the yard to near perfection, but why? I have everything I need to make it better right here inside. Getting it as close to possible in the RAW is indeed a requirement, but this is not a contest of simplicity......if you can use the very wonderful software available to improve your photo, by all means use it! Read up on what Ansel Adams had to say along these lines...it might surprise you. Regards! I agree. Adams seemed to want what we have now. He was a pioneer of new things as well.

08-26-2010, 02:24 PM	#26
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by jwiles I agree. Adams seemed to want what we have now. He was a pioneer of new things as well. Nice try. Adams was not a pioneer of darkroom techniques. He was a master of them. Period. All the greats did it, and they did it well. Let's start with the Zone system. It's based upon late 19th century sensitometry studies of Hurter and Driffield. Then let's talk about the contempories of Admas - Adams was one of the founders, along with Willard Van Dyke, Imogen Cunningham, Edward Weston, Henry Swift, Sonya Noskowiak and John Paul Edwards, of Group f.64. Now let's talk about influences: Adams was strongly influenced by Alfred Stieglitz, whom he met in 1933 and who mounted a one-man exhibition for him in 1936 at Stieglitz's An American Place gallery in New York City. Dorothea Lange and Adams collaborated on several magazine pictorials for Fortune, Time, and Life magazines, adding to his national reputation. Yes, he was a pioneer. That said, let me give you a quote by Edward Weston. "Our sensibilities today are not fooled by the novelty of the camera process; modern men clearly feel the individual personality of each of the authors of different photographs, although made at the same time and in the same space. We feel the personality of the photographer as clearly as that of the painter, draughtsman, or printmaker. Actually, camera and darkroom manipulations are a technique, like oil, pencil, or watercolor; and, above all, the means of expression of human personality." cf: Edward Weston - Diego Rivera, “Edward Weston and Tina Modotti”, Mexican Folkways 2, April-May 1926. [cited in: “EW:100 – Centennial Essays in Honor of Edward Weston”, “Tina Modotti and Edward Weston: A Re-evaluation of their Photography” p. 63, Untitled 41, The Friends of Photography, Carmel, California 1986] Now let's take this all FULL CIRCLE. As a final word in refutation of your assertion that Adams was a somehow an outlier from the crowd and represented a pioneer (and therefore was in the minority) in photo manipulation... have a look at the history of photo manipulation linked below. Remember as an aside in the course of that reading that Dorothea Lange was a strong Adams influence... Darkroom Manipulation \| Evan Baines Photography Let's just get to they ALL did manipulation in the darkroom. Weston saw in that the thing that differentiated photographers. I suppose the failure to learn or do manipulation would likewise be a differentiator... Let's just say it this way... all the greats did it. The fact that it is somehow more accessible does not serve somehow to make it more banal. Respectfully submitted, woof!

08-26-2010, 04:28 PM	#27
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	interesting thread. personally i will aim to get the right pictures the first time using the camera. If i dont get it right the first few tries, i try and try again. If all else fails, and i really want to retain that photo, i will do a simple PP but i am not thrilled by my achievement. I am much more satisfied when i can tell myself that those great shots are done on the field. I am okay with fine tuning of the exposure using PP, however.

08-26-2010, 04:45 PM	#28
LucyGoosey Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: New Jersey Photos: Albums Posts: 86	Just curious, how many of you have experience in a darkroom before? I did a long time ago and had to give it up b/c of the cost. But I'd argue there was more of a science to it than just pushing some mouse clicks until you get it right.

08-26-2010, 05:16 PM	#30
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by jwiles I've been to a number of nature photography workshops as well as journalism photo workshops in the past several months and the mix is evident. How so? These people are paying good money to attend a workshop. That strikes me as evidence they do in fact care about craftsmanship. What counterevidence do you have? Quote: that's what brought up my question of "is the picture you're looking at a true representation of what the photographer saw or is it PP" Again, you are setting up a distinction that doesn't exist. I use PP to help me create a "true representation of what the photographer saw", because the extremely rudimentary control over this provided by the camera cannot possibly get close enough for the discerning eye. Quote: It's out there and perhpas there is a split between the "partial to in-camera" and "partial to PP". For every person you can name who does not in fact strive to get their pictures as right as they can in camera, I will have no trouble finding you 20 who do.