If we nail the exposure (during the shoot or using exposure compensation during the raw conversion process), will we need any further post-processing besides cropping and resizing?

[Palouse]

<p>Jeff, and your point is that post processing is universal, and therefore right? I think that most posters here are arguing for what works for them. I was simply pointing out that there are some--well, at least one-- who forsakes all post processing! I can think of others, Scott Kelby and his followers, fro whom post processing is probably more important than the shot itself!<br /> Me? I fall into the the 'color me lazy' camp--I like to get by with as little as possible, usually.<br>

I guess I could have just as easily referred to Ansel Adams' working his prints differently each time he printed from a negative. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Every image is an interpretation. If you shoot a jpg you are allowing the camera to make those judgments for you. I shot film for decades using the zone system as a guide. Exposure, development, choice of film and developer, print paper and print developer, darkroom manipulation, etc. are all part of the process. There is no such thing as “straight.” With digital it is no different. No medium can capture all the dynamic range of all scenes. A choice has to be made by someone or something. It boils down to how much are you going to participate in the process, and how much does it matter to you. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>If you shoot a jpg you are allowing the camera to make those judgments for you.</em></p>

<p>This isn't quite right. You can set the contrast, white balance, saturation, exposure, sharpening, clarity, even upload a custom tone curve to the camera. All of these aspects are in your control, the camera just does what you tell it to do. The question is whether it is reasonable to make these judgments at shooting time or not. I think it is better to make them afterwards, in front of a good, calibrated monitor in a controlled environment.</p>

<p>By using lighting at the shooting time you can also make local adjustments to the image. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with all the others who say there is no correct exposure to "nail" for many images. It all depends on what in the pic you care about being "correctly" exposed. Hypothetically you could know this in advance, but I usually expose to the right so my RAW files are intentionally overexposed, so they virtually always need adjustment anyway. So I reject the preposition.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"So I reject the preposition."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to mention the conjuctions--no ifs, ands or buts about it. . .</p>

<p>Clearly a devastating rebuttal. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>P.S.: I have never suggested that "nailing the exposure" implies a single proper exposure for any and all pictures, much less for any and all artistic visions.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>As many have already pointed out: "nailing the exposure" is not the end of it. The dynamic range has to be considered, which is often beyond the ability of the medium to capture, either film or digital. If you do not want to post process, you have to decide, as the past shooters of slide film have pointed out, which to favor, the shadows or the highlights, which means a subjective/creative decision has to be made even when making the exposure. In that case, you are making a compromise. When you post process, you can adjust for the dynamic range. <br>

I guess what is bothering me about this type of question is that it breaks down to: when do I stop making creative decisions in the process? By choosing to not do any post processing you are ending your creative control after making the exposure. Why? when so much creative decision making can occur even before making the exposure, including composition, choice of lens, lighting, angle, iso, shutter speed, etc. This also brings up the fact that "correct exposure" is a moving target. At iso 125 a "correct" exposure in sunlight might be f16 at 1/125 sec. (sunny 16 rule). But a correct exposure could also be f 2.8 at 1/4000 sec, or f 45 at 1/15 sec. All would be the exact same exposure, but very different results regarding depth of focus, and capturing movement or creating blur. So, after making a myriad of decisions already, why would you stop there? Do you stop caring about the end result at this point? Doesn't make sense. </p>

[unangelino]

<p>First, there is my eye's ability to gather light and my brain's ability to interpret it. Second, there's my camera's lesser ability to manage the same light. Third, there's my idea of the correct exposure for any given scene or image. Just as the definition of a <em>weed</em> is a plant I don't want growing somewhere so a <em>bad</em> exposure is one that is different from the exposure I wanted to see.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>My two cents:</p>

<p>1 - In most cases, there isn't one correct exposure. There may be more than one useful exposure.</p>

<p>Perhaps you normally try to avoid blowing out highlights. But what if the photo contains lightbulbs or specular highlights on metal. Or you're shooting a high key portrait. You can make one exposure that preserves the highlights, but the rest of your image might be underexposed enough where noise becomes a problem. So you take another image and willfully blow those highlights a bit. But by how much? And do you care as long as most of the photo is exposed in a relatively noise-free range?</p>

<p>2 - Whether or not you believe in a correct exposure, consider how difficult it is to determine that you have achieved that exposure, even when referring to histograms and blinking highlights displays. Histograms are based on JPEG previews, not raw files. You can use a flat preview setting and run a bunch of tests to get a feel for how much you need to push each channel of the histogram, but the final result is going to vary depending on lighting, composition, and the colors, texture, and surfaces that you are shooting. Even if you're in a studio using strobes, the strobes don't fire with exactly the same power on each shot.</p>

<p>3 - At the moment of exposure, I would rather worry about composition, accurate focus, facial expressions, camera stability, and capturing the mood of the moment rather than fretting over an exposure value that I can adjust within reason. With today's sensors, a one-stop over or under exposure will not ruin most shots. I try to get reasonably close or bracket if I want options (or insurance), and focus my attention on seeing and capturing photographs.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>By choosing to not do any post processing you are ending your creative control after making the exposure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never make that choice, and I have not argued that here. There is a school of thought that believes that SOOC is best. I have never accepted that, much less <em>promoted</em> such a ridiculous idea. (Some even think that there should be no cropping, that, if there is, the shot should be discarded. That is ludicrous.) I do like to achieve the final result with the fewest number of steps as possible in post. Doing so typically makes for greater simplicity and thus greater ease in trying to achieve the right color balance, since many manipulations are not color neutral.</p>

<p>In order to realize a certain artistic vision, it might be necessary to do a great deal of post-processing. I am simply saying that paying more attention to exposure can simplify post-processing.</p>

<p>Photography is complicated enough without having to make corrections for incorrect exposure--incorrect for that photo is and for what one hopes to achieve with it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>At the moment of exposure, I would rather worry about composition, accurate focus, facial expressions, camera stability, and capturing the mood of the moment rather than fretting over an exposure value that I can adjust within reason.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see no false dilemma between emphasizing exposure and emphasizing composition. I can shoot with attention to composition at one exposure, then change the exposure compensation and shoot again--or again and again. For each shot composition is critical.</p>

<p>More generally, to all who have commented, let me explain my approach by starting with a question:</p>

<p>Why do I go to such trouble? Why do I emphasize exposure so much? The answer to both questions is the same: <em><strong>I shoot a lot at night.</strong></em> "Correct" exposure is often almost indeterminate in night shooting. I like to have several alternative exposures (read: raw files) to look at when I get back. The subtleties that make for success in night photography often do depend on starting with an exposure that is close to ideal--if one wants to get a color balance that is also nearly ideal (whatever one's ideal may be). It is often hard to see that ideal in advance before shooting, or on the spot while shooting. As I argued far above, shooting in good light and getting the exposure close is a breeze compared to trying to do it in near darkness.</p>

<p>I don't take the time to do much chimping when shooting on the street at night. It is too risky in the neighborhoods that I work. I will, however, take the risk of hanging around a bad neighborhood in order to get the exposure right, regardless of the risk. Bracketing is often simply not enough. More shots are called for. The tripod might have to be moved slightly to move street lamps out of the picture. Correcting the raw file in post often does not work. For the real subtleties of night photography, without getting into messes with color, shoot enough shots of the same subject--but with different exposure compensation settings--so as to be able to have at least one file on hand which will be easier/easiest to work with. The time expended during the shoot (especially at night) can save a lot of post-processing time later. The time expended will also pay off in other, more subtle ways related to color balance and color accuracy (or even color creativity), which can be a true will-o-the-wisp in night photography.</p>

<p>The more attention one gives to exposure while shooting has other unintended benefits: one gets to know what works pretty well most of the time. Processing and comparing different exposures of the same subject force one to go through steps which improve consciousness of exposure and other variables. One cannot be too good when it comes to the basics.</p>

<p>Here is what I said above (on October 25 at 11:35 p.m.):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I would like to emphasize finally that <strong><em>my observations are based overwhelmingly on shooting in low light.</em></strong> Good light usually presents no particular exposure problems. Correct exposure in low light can be a nightmare. My water tower shots have shown me that one wants to start with different files in order to more easily bring to fruition different effects. If one wants <a href="/photo/17884335" rel="nofollow"><em><strong>this</strong></em></a>, then one might (I repeat "might") want to start with a differently exposed file (one of different initial exposure in terms of compensation) than if one wants to get <a href="/photo/17887553" rel="nofollow"><strong><em>this</em></strong></a> or <a href="/photo/17887552" rel="nofollow"><strong><em>this</em></strong></a>, much less <a href="/photo/17878411" rel="nofollow"><strong><em>this</em></strong></a>. Each low light situation has its own challenges.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The claims that I am making here cannot be either verified or dis-verified here. They can be confirmed or refuted only by trying them in the field--BEFORE subjecting them to as much post-processing as one wants or needs later in order to realize one's artistic vision.</p>

<p>I have no formula for how much post-processing is enough. That depends on the effect one is trying to achieve. I do know that I often change my mind about post-processing once I get into it. Very often what I wind up with after post-processing is very different from what I expected--and at least some of the time it is better. It is true that I often do prefer simple processing, but I also do a lot of complex post-processing. I have no recommendations to make in that regard.</p>

<p>One last point is this: attention to exposure is central at the time of the shoot, but attention to post-processing comes later. These are two distinct phases of photography, and we do well to keep them distinct in our minds, in my opinion. Regardless of how much unity there is in the entire process or vision of making a photo, one does well, I believe, to give serious attention to exposure during the shoot--nut just when tweaking exposure in raw files during post-processing. Doing so (giving serious attention to exposure during the shoot) will make any post-processing decisions simpler, less time-consuming, and more rewarding in terms of the subtle lighting (and color) effects that elevate a mediocre photo into a very good one.</p>

<p>Rather than saying, "I don't need to do all that," I suggest giving it a try--and prove to yourself one way or another what works best for you and your purposes. I would never expect anyone to take my word for anything that they can prove or disprove for themselves.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Just as the definition of a <em>weed</em> is a plant I don't want growing somewhere so a <em>bad</em> exposure is one that is different from the exposure I wanted to see. --Paul Cervantes</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That pretty much says it all, Paul.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Landrum, you stated:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>THESIS: If we can nail the exposure (during the shoot or later in raw), then we will often not need any further post-processing besides cropping and resizing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I am saying is that this thesis is wrong. “Nailing the exposure” is simply a step in the processing work flow. It was always that way with black and white film and it is still that way with digital. Unless you are in a studio and can control every aspect of your environment, you will almost always need to have a work flow that begins with exposure (and all the creative decisions that precede exposure) and seamlessly follows through with post processing. That's my experience anyway.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

No matter what the genre I am shooting, advertising, fine art or editorial, I like nailing everything in camera. It just works

for me.

[sjmurray]

<p>Daniel, I respect your style, of course. I suspect you are in a very small minority of photographers though. I see you shot kodachrome a lot before it became unavailable, which (I guess) explains your point of view to some degree. I think most of us who did darkroom work in the past and now shoot digital see the process of photography from conception to final print as a continual workflow as I described above. Even when I can get the exposure as perfect as it can be, I can almost always see that I can make creative adjustments beyond that point, usually in terms of dynamic range and color adjustment, even if its just a little bit. I care enough about my final output that I will not ignore the tools available for post production if it allows me to express myself fully. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Even when I can get the exposure as perfect as it can be, I can almost always see that I can make creative adjustments beyond that point, usually in terms of dynamic range and color adjustment, even if its just a little bit. I care enough about my final output that I will not ignore the tools available for post production if it allows me to express myself fully.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I. Therefore what?</p>

<p>Regardless of how simplistic the thesis may be, I think that it is important to read the thesis for what it says rather than for what one may think that it implies about others' photographic and post-processing style.</p>

<p>Some seem to be operating upon the assumption that I or others always do very little post-processing. Regardless of whether the shot/vision requires little or much post-processing, exposure is vital and should be taken very seriously. Doing so simplifies things enormously down the post-processing pike.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, I am not a SOOC kind of shooter--even when I am indeed shooting for simple realism. Perusal of <a href="/photodb/member-photos?user_id=423641"><em><strong>my photos</strong> </em></a>will show that I shoot at widely varying degrees of manipulation in post, depending on the effect(s) I am trying to achieve. Regardless of the final goal that I have in mind, I do want to nail the exposure congruent with what I want to achieve. That does not mean that I am indifferent to how that exposure is going to work into the overall treatment or the entire "workflow." The workflow is going to be a heck of a lot easier if the exposure was congruent with one's overall vision, whether at the outset or as it may evolve with further processing and manipulation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I care enough about my final output that I will not ignore the tools available for post production if it allows me to express myself fully.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I should hope not. I think that people are talking past each other on many issues here.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodachromeproject.com/"><strong><em>Here</em></strong></a> is a link to Daniel Bayer's Kodachrome Project. It looks very good to me. It does not have the look of someone who "ignore the tools available for post production. . . "</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>It is amazing how much manipulation may be required to make a photo look unmanipulated!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Lannie, you said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So do I. Therefore what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "what" is that your original thesis is about not needing post processing if you "get the exposure right." </p>

<p>My responses are about that statement. Unless you shoot slide film or are totally satisfied with the settings of your camera, then post processing is just a continuation of the creative process. Period. This negates your thesis for most people.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>we will often not need any further post-processing besides cropping and resizing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There is an "often" in there, Steve.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Bill C]

<p>My main work experience has been in what we call high-volume portraiture. And I am speaking from experience when I say yes, it is possible to nail the exposure and go straight to high-quality printing. I do have a slight disclaimer about the post-processing - we made our own camera profiles to fine tune the look we want. So you might say that this is special post processing. On the other hand, it fits into a standard color-managed workflow, so no extra steps are required.</p>

<p>The main problem with this idea is that it's very difficult to keep the exposure right on the money. We had tried exposure-correcting routines in nominal 1/3 f-stop increments, which means that no image had to exceed 1/6 stop error (once you get halfway to the next 1/3 stop increment, you jump to the next, so max error is halfway, or 1/6 stop). These jumps were still too large for us. Our standards needed the exposure to be within about 1/10 f-stop of the aim, which is really difficult to maintain under typical portrait lighting (people move around too much). So in practice, it's preferable for the portrait photographer to work in a basic setup without too much precision, then make fine corrections to the exposure later.</p>

<p>If someone sees themself as an artist, where they don't know exactly what they're after, this obviously doesn't work for them. Otherwise, with some setup work, it's definitely possible to nail things. But typically, it's easier to just correct afterwards.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>with some setup work, it's definitely possible to nail things. But typically, it's easier to just correct afterwards.</p>

<p>We had tried exposure-correcting routines in nominal 1/3 f-stop increments, which means that no image had to exceed 1/6 stop error (once you get halfway to the next 1/3 stop increment, you jump to the next, so max error is halfway, or 1/6 stop). These jumps were still too large for us. Our standards needed the exposure to be within about 1/10 f-stop of the aim</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>"Our standards needed the exposure to be within about 1/10 f-stop of the aim"</strong></p>

<p>Holy cow, Bill. That is demanding!</p>

<p>Yes, of course, most of time further adjustments are necessary--all the more reason to get the exposure as close as possible out of the camera where exposure is concerned. That certainly does not preclude further manipulation, of course.</p>

<p>Here is one where I had a vague sense of what I wanted to achieve, but I really wasn't sure about the exposure, and so every variant of this that has worked to any degree has required some tweaking--and often more than just a bit of tweaking. Here are three variations in post of the same shot. I still have yet to get the perfect final version. I wish that I had shot more frames of the same subject using greater variation in exposure compensation:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/10817994"><em><strong>http://www.photo.net/photo/10817994</strong></em></a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/10802775"><em><strong>http://www.photo.net/photo/10802775</strong></em></a></p>

<p><a href="/photo/17891786"><strong><em>http://www.photo.net/photo/17891786</em></strong></a></p>

<p>This (below) might well have been the original file. (I shot it nine years ago, and I probably have the original file on one of my backup drives.) I really don't remember much about the shoot or subsequent processing, but I probably saw the narrower crop while processing this one:</p>

<p><a href="/photo/10802538&size=lg"><strong><em>http://www.photo.net/photo/10802538&size=lg</em></strong></a></p>

<p>I do a LOT of my more creative work in post, which is why I do not understand some of the responses. Creative or not, achieved in post or not, it starts with exposure. If that (along with composition, of course) is not right or at least close, then nothing will save it, in my opinion. I am not into "saving" a bad shot, not to say that it has never happened to some good effect.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>If someone sees themself as an artist, where they don't know exactly what they're after, this obviously doesn't work for them. Otherwise, with some setup work, it's definitely possible to nail things. But typically, it's easier to just correct afterwards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, as much as I like this entire passage, it is the first part that I love: "If someone sees themself as an artist, where they don't know exactly what they're after, this obviously doesn't work for them."</p>

<p>I daresay most of us who shoot (whether we see ourselves as artists or not) don't know in advance exactly what we are after, much less what we are likely to get--and that is what makes it interesting. If I could see it all before I started, I would get bored pretty fast and go do something else with my time. In the process of trying to create, we often discover, and that is the wonderful thing about photography for me.</p>

<p>I don't just go out there, find the shot I want, bring it home, and try to make it look just like it did to my eye. (Well, sometimes I try that.) What I more typically do is find a good subject, get a lot of shots from a lot of angles at varying exposures at each angle, and then pray while I process that at least one of them will yield something worthwhile. I don't necessarily try to get it as it looked, but I do want to process it in such a way that it doesn't really look manipulated. I fail at that quite regularly.</p>

<p>If I could live another fifty years, I would from time to time still be trying to get the perfect treatment in post of some of my favorite exposure(s).</p>

<p>So, yes, post-processing is central, but exposure is primary, if only because it comes first.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Hi, that nominal 1/10 stop is on the color-correcting end, by which I mean within the range where a professional color corrector should say, this is good enough, ready to print with no adjustments needed. Our actual shipping standards were wider than that.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Regardless, Bill, you obviously do know what you are doing.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/16600574&size=lg"><em><strong>This is incredible night work.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Bill C]

<p>Thanks Lannie, my adult work life has been 100% in photography, so I've been around the block a bit.</p>

<p>That was a fun evening of play with the loco. It's been dressed up with a series of low power flash shots while I run along the side. The hard part was not falling down while running around in the near dark (I think this was about the tenth shot, experimenting with where I point and fire the flash).</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>75 threads later.... and belatedly to the question of the OP:</p>

<p>YES!</p>

<p>Post exposure processing digitally is like wet darkroom manipulations. Essential in most cases in order to create an image that goes beyond the accurate exposure of a scene and expresses what an artist photographer has in mind. Correct exposure is only part of the process and may not ultimately be "correct".</p>