Sunday musings: working towards getting it right in camera, and zero post-processing

[Karim Ghantous]

A lot of digital cameras allow you to tune your JPEG file internally. You can select b&w modes, tone curves, film simulation profiles, DRO (lifting shadows, single exposure), HDR (like in the iPhone, combining two or more exposures), sharpness, saturation, automatic lens corrections, and so on and on. If the situation allows, you can of course bracket exposures, just like on film cameras. You would be wise to shoot RAW as insurance on certain occasions, of course.

 

This is not news to anyone, and I assume that many of you prefer to just shoot and share without having to spend time tweaking images. And this philosophy of course does not apply to metaphotography (compositing, retouching, altering) - AKA digital art. It doesn't apply to commercial photography, where the image serves to sell a product, and the image is not intended to be a document.

 

But the reason I brought it up now is that I just read a preview of the Fuji X-Pro3 (BTW I am not a Fuji user). It has clarity adjustment (AKA brilliance, alchemy, whatever), which no other camera seems to have yet. When used carefully it does work rather well. And I thought, that's pretty smart. And it's one more way to minimize reliance on post-processing.

 

So far, you can't do everything in the camera. If you want extreme image quality, which you can get with frame averaging, you're still going to need a computer (unless someone knows of a camera that allows this internally). And if you're shooting at extremely high ISO values, a RAW converter is still the best way to mitigate noise.

 

I've done a few shoots recently where I shot JPEGs only, and all I had to do to some of them was tweak exposure and crop - which can be done either on your phone, or with simple apps like Preview. And if I was a bit wiser and just used AF lenses, I would have been able to adjust exposure more quickly. If the lighting wasn't as troublesome I probably would not have had to make a single adjustment to any of the photos.

 

I recall reading on this site, many years ago now, about how some photographers would take their digital cameras on road trips. And how some of these photographers would also take along a laptop computer. And I thought: what's the point of digital cameras if you have to carry along extra stuff with them? I also ask, especially now when sensors are so good, and features are so comprehensive: what's the point of sitting in front of your computer after every shoot?

 

As always, YMMV!

[JDMvW]

what's the point of sitting in front of your computer after every shoot?

 

I wonder why Ansel Adams spent all that time in the darkroom, when he could just have got it in the image?

 

Photography is not capturing just one picture, it's the whole process from camera to final image, and the computer now substitutes for the darkroom.

[Ed_Ingold]

Decisions which camera to buy are often based on the quality (i.e.,color) of the JPEG previews. That seems a bit shallow, but everyone is entitled to their opinions (and the use of their own money). I shot JPEGs on my first my first trip with a DSLR. Fortunately, I got over that.

[Bill C]

I wonder why Ansel Adams spent all that time in the darkroom, when he could just have got it in the image?

 

You might be overlooking that Adams shot quite a lot of Polaroid photos, and spent quite a few years as a consultant to them.

 

From the website:

ANSEL ADAMS AND EDWIN LAND: ART, SCIENCE, AND INVENTION | PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE POLAROID COLLECTION — Curatorial Assistance Traveling Exhibitions

 

In 1948 Land invited Adams to the Polaroid factory to experience firsthand the new technology. After that first visit, Adams wrote to Land: “I look forward to trying the camera out . . . I am tremendously excited about the actual use in the field and studio. I think it promises to be one of the greatest steps in the development of photography. I only hope it will not be presented as a curiosity. I think the first presentation should include work by top photographers and show a broad range of application.”

 

Although I am not a big fan of Adams' best-known type of work, I have a great deal of respect for him. And I think that people sometimes try to put him in a box which he really doesn't entirely fit into.

[JDMvW]

I am well aware of Adams's polaroid work, used some of the same films myself; but compared to his main body of work, it was not "quite a lot"

 

When he was using his Contax, Stieglitz took some just plain "snapshots", but ....

[samstevens]

And I think that people sometimes try to put him in a box which he really doesn't entirely fit into.

The guy was known for his darkroom work and he left a legacy of post processing expertise, recognition of which is not putting him “in a box.” It’s doing him justice. That’s respect.

what's the point of sitting in front of your computer after every shoot?

The point for me is that’s where I do a lot of my expressing and get to see and decide where the raw footage will take me. I’m not interested in saving time. I love working on photos. I’m not compositing, by the way, just doing on my computer what photographers used to spend time doing in the darkroom. I’m not doing “digital art.” It’s photography. “Shoot and share?” Nope. Well, maybe the occasional snapshot. But my serious photography is more than a “shoot and share” kind of thing. It requires craft, care, and refinement.

[charles_stobbs3]

I'm with you Karim. I spent years shooting Kodachrome 25. Post processing was dropping the film in a mailbox (if you were fussy you looked at the pickup times posted on the mailbox and made sure the box would remain out of the sun until then, or found a better placed mailbox). (Kodak motto, you press the shutter, we do the rest.) Now that I'm forced to start printing digital I hope to keep the process equally simple

[Bill C]

I am well aware of Adams's polaroid work, used some of the same films myself; but compared to his main body of work, it was not "quite a lot"

 

Yes, I would agree that it was likely a small proportion of "his main body of work," but that's not my point. You specifically brought Adams into the discussion, saying:

I wonder why Ansel Adams spent all that time in the darkroom, when he could just have got it in the image?

 

I am pointing out that there ARE times when he DID "just get it in the image."

[JDMvW]

I originally had a comment in the post about Adams's Polaroids, but thought it was just a distraction not relevant to the OP, so took it out.

 

I still think it's irrelevant.

 

I shot mostly Kodachrome from 1960 on, and that's why I got a Repronar -- so I could at least try to correct various problems. Not even slide film was immune to what we hadn't yet learned to call post-processing.

[michaellinder]

As for me, while I'm still trying to improve my camera skills, I thank my lucky stars that I have software as backup when my camera settings are off. I agree with Sam's comment about the computer as substitute for the darkroom. I would add, though, that in some respects, the computer can take an image much farther. Since I do a lot of abstract work, I am grateful for that.

[mikemorrell]

Ansel Adams was IHMO a great pioneer in his time. Continual references to him as the 'benchmark' for all later photography bore me.

 

W.r.t. the OP: it doesn't sound to me as if you you know a lot about the process of digital photography. Nothing in your post is new,

[Supriyo]

also ask, especially now when sensors are so good, and features are so comprehensive: what's the point of sitting in front of your computer after every shoot?

 

While basic settings like white balance or lens profile correction can be applied to every shot (or most) in a series, when you refer to things like brilliance and clarity, it’s no longer ‘one size fits all’. That means, you have to tweak those settings after pretty much every shot, just that, now you are doing them on a tiny preview screen of the camera which you hope to be accurate in rendering, as opposed to the larger more versatile workspace of a computer. So, I don’t see this as a win win situation. To me, its not that much extra effort to carry a 13” laptop.

[Tony Parsons]

Does it matter whether the 'post-processing, image enhancement or just plain tweaking' takes place in the camera, in the darkroom or on a computer ? However it's done, it's an attempt to reproduce the reality you think you saw when you took the photo.

[Vincent Peri]

I get it right in camera every time I shoot color slide film, with no post processing LOL.

[Allen Herbert]

"Photography is not capturing just one picture, it's the whole process from camera to final image, and the computer now substitutes for the darkroom" JNM.

[Sanford]

The game on TV, audio book on the headphones, cup of coffee, & Photoshop. What could be better?

[samstevens]

However it's done, it's an attempt to reproduce the reality you think you saw when you took the photo.

This is true for many great photos.

 

It’s also true that it can produce an artifice or very different reality from the actuality you saw.

[Tony Parsons]

This is true for many great photos.

 

It’s also true that it can produce an artifice or very different reality from the actuality you saw.

 

That is why I specified 'the reality you think you saw'. Whether anyone else saw what you did is a moot point, given that our views are coloured (sorry) by our mental and emotional state, upbringing, training and education etc.

[Karim Ghantous]

W.r.t. the OP: it doesn't sound to me as if you you know a lot about the process of digital photography. Nothing in your post is new,

It seems that you were going to finish the sentence...? I do read all the comments, so please continue.

 

As for not knowing a lot about digital photography, let me put it this way: one of my favourite photographers selects only his very best frames, then spends a good amount of time figuring out how little post-processing he needs to apply to make the image perfect. Presets - his own, BTW - take him so far, then he adjusts those settings to suit the photo. The result is natural imagery that you would swear had no post-processing done to them, but they look very crisp and very refined. So yeah I'm kind of familiar with digital photography. ;-)

[Ed_Ingold]

I get it right in camera every time I shoot color slide film, with no post processing LOL.

Did you ever have a slide you couldn't use? When did you find out?

[larrycooper]

For people who manage to find a camera whose engineers and programmers had the same "vision" as they did, in camera processing may work very well. For people who have a different vision than the engineers and programmers (or perhaps different from everyone else) post processing is a source of freedom and enjoyment that adds to the experience of photography. There is nothing wrong with no wanting to do post processing; but there is nothing wrong with seeing post processing as part of your photographic work flow that is empowering to your particular "vision".

 

There is no "right in camera" that is right for everyone, and there is no moral or technical superiority to believing the engineers and programmers are "righter" than someone who post processes. If you don't want to post process, then don't. But expect a long search for a camera built by people with whom you agree completely. If you want to pursue your individual vision of "right", then post processing is a lot of fun. The argument about in camera is best, or in post is best, is just silly.

[Sanford]

Even in the film days, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, all put out distinctly different signatures as far as warm or cool colors, out of focus rendering, etc.

[Vincent Peri]

Did you ever have a slide you couldn't use? When did you find out?

 

I very rarely have a bad slide. I usually know within 10 days if I have a bad slide. I'm in no rush to find out, though. I'm not a professional photographer, nor am a "gotta have it NOW" person like many people today.

[Ed_Ingold]

In 10 days, I might be 3000 miles from the shot I wished I had gotten right. For the same reason, I might be more forgiving of the slides I did take.

[samstevens]

one of my favourite photographers selects only his very best frames, then spends a good amount of time figuring out how little post-processing he needs to apply to make the image perfect.

This shows you know how another photographer works, not that you have first-hand knowledge of post processing.

 

My process is very different from this photographer you quote. Again, my goal is not to spend as little time post processing any more than it is to spend as little time out in the world shooting to get my image. I’m not doing photography to save myself time. What time I put into the full process is time I want to spend doing it.

 

I’m also not working toward a perfect image. My goal is to express something. There is room for lots of imperfection in that, since I’m merely human. Perfection presumes an already established standard. More interesting to me is the photographer who wants something new or unusual to unfold or who allows herself to defy previous standards or tastes, who’s not bound by the clawing demands of perfection.