Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <46601a5c$0$21505$>,
    Wayne J. Cosshall <> wrote:
    >Hi All,
    >
    >My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:
    >http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html


    It's not clear if all of the effects mentioned for the 'in-camera photographer'
    (the is nothing 'in' in putting a filter in front of a lens) can be
    duplicated in post processing.

    I am a 'post-camera photographer' at heart. But I may go the analog route for
    an effect if it would prove difficult to get right digitally.


    --
    That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
    could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
    by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
    -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
    Philip Homburg, Jun 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 1, 2007
    #3
  4. HI Philip,

    There are certainly some in-camera filter effects, for example, that are
    at least difficult to accurately simulate later. I suspect, though I
    have not tried, that all the optical effects of a Lensbaby, etc are not
    completely duplicatable.

    Personally, I do both, and pretty much always have, from my darkroom
    days to today.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



    Philip Homburg wrote:
    > In article <46601a5c$0$21505$>,
    > Wayne J. Cosshall <> wrote:
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:
    >> http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >
    > It's not clear if all of the effects mentioned for the 'in-camera photographer'
    > (the is nothing 'in' in putting a filter in front of a lens) can be
    > duplicated in post processing.
    >
    > I am a 'post-camera photographer' at heart. But I may go the analog route for
    > an effect if it would prove difficult to get right digitally.
    >
    >
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Scott W Guest

    On Jun 1, 11:36 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > > Hi All,

    >
    > > My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this
    > > topic:
    > >http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >
    > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many people
    > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    > drones.
    >
    > Rita

    Well since I shoot only in raw there are only a few things that I can
    do in camera, and not many of them could be done in Photoshop. If I
    was shooting jpegs I could adjust the contrast, but if I go for high
    contrast then I will often lose information in the photos. Whereas it
    is easy to go from a low contrast image to high going the other way
    does not work well. The same thing is true of saturation, I can
    always turn up the saturation but if I shoot with high saturation I
    will often have colors go out of gamut and I can never get them back.

    And even if I really knew at the time I took the photos exactly what I
    wanted there is still the problem that what works in an image on my
    monitor might not be the best choice for making a print.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Eric Hocking Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this
    >> topic:
    >> http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >
    > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many
    > people
    > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    > drones.


    I'm in agreement on approach here. Much like with sound engineering - best
    to capture the "best" (not necessarily cleanest) "image" (be it audio or
    visual) at, or of the source. At least then you have much more latitude in
    post-hoc processing. The term polishing a t*rd springs to mind. If you
    don't have a good, or at least indicative, base to start with, unless you
    are very talented, there's not much you can do with a crap image. Ansell is
    quoted as the bee's knees on how to best learn the basics, but when you get
    into what he did, there was a HUGE amount of post processing he did with his
    images. First though, he captured the basic image as best he could given
    the conditions and equipment at hand...

    --
    Eric Hocking
    "A closed mouth gathers no feet"
    "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
    Attempting spam blocking - remove upper case to reply.
    Eric Hocking, Jun 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Scott W Guest

    On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, "Eric Hocking"
    <ehocking@REMOVE_THIS_BIT_btinternet.com> wrote:
    > "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in messagenews:...
    >
    > > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

    >
    > >> Hi All,

    >
    > >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this
    > >> topic:
    > >>http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >
    > > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many
    > > people
    > > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    > > drones.

    >
    > I'm in agreement on approach here. Much like with sound engineering - best
    > to capture the "best" (not necessarily cleanest) "image" (be it audio or
    > visual) at, or of the source. At least then you have much more latitude in
    > post-hoc processing. The term polishing a t*rd springs to mind. If you
    > don't have a good, or at least indicative, base to start with, unless you
    > are very talented, there's not much you can do with a crap image. Ansell is
    > quoted as the bee's knees on how to best learn the basics, but when you get
    > into what he did, there was a HUGE amount of post processing he did with his
    > images. First though, he captured the basic image as best he could given
    > the conditions and equipment at hand...

    But consider that the best looking image might be one where the black
    point is set fairly high, giving a high contrast image but one where
    some of the shadow detail is loss. In this case I find it far better
    to capture the scene with the greatest dynamic range I can and then
    reduce the range later, for either prints or screen viewing.
    Different outputs, prints monitors etc. have different dynamic ranges,
    so it very possible that what might look the best on one might not
    look the best on another. A very simple case of this is when viewing
    your images on a computer monitor in a bright room vs. viewing them in
    a dim room. In a dim room I much prefer to have the image fairly dark
    giving me a lot of range for highlights, in a bright room that image
    would appear too dark and I would lose some of the highlights.

    In twenty years who knows how I might want to view them, but I will
    have my raw images to work with which gives me the most range to work
    with.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 2, 2007
    #7
  8. Scott W wrote:

    >
    > In twenty years who knows how I might want to view them, but I will
    > have my raw images to work with which gives me the most range to work
    > with.


    And in far shorter a time frame, some images may beg to be redone just
    because RAW converters have been improved. In fact, ACR 4.1 has some
    nice new stuff just yesterday.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 2, 2007
    #8
  9. "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:

    Pointless question... not an either/or issue. Like catsup and mustard:
    sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both at once.
    Charles Gillen, Jun 2, 2007
    #9
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    "Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many

    people
    > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    > drones.


    Obviously you never used a darkroom then. I suggest those who let the
    photolab make all their decisions are probably the real drones.
    But if criticising others choices makes you feel better about yourself, go
    for it, just don't expect anyone else to care.

    MrT.
    Mr.T, Jun 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Hi Rita,

    I think it is unfair to call people mindless drones. When I am in
    Photoshop I am neither being mindless, nor do I drone (though I do talk
    to myself sometimes :)

    Photoshop is as valid a place to create as the darkroom once was for me.
    I also do much in camera. Perhaps you should have read my post on
    right/wrong thinking :)

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this
    >> topic:
    >> http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >
    > I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many people
    > forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    > drones.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 2, 2007
    #11
  12. Hi Scott,

    I am sure you are missing in your statement all the things that you do
    do in camera. Even with RAW you are using your lenses, exposure control,
    framing, perhaps lens filters to get the result that you want?

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



    Scott W wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 11:36 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>> Hi All,
    >>> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this
    >>> topic:
    >>> http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html

    >> I rather do it in-camera as that's where the challenge is. Too many people
    >> forgot what photography is all about and have become mindless Photoshop
    >> drones.
    >>
    >> Rita

    > Well since I shoot only in raw there are only a few things that I can
    > do in camera, and not many of them could be done in Photoshop. If I
    > was shooting jpegs I could adjust the contrast, but if I go for high
    > contrast then I will often lose information in the photos. Whereas it
    > is easy to go from a low contrast image to high going the other way
    > does not work well. The same thing is true of saturation, I can
    > always turn up the saturation but if I shoot with high saturation I
    > will often have colors go out of gamut and I can never get them back.
    >
    > And even if I really knew at the time I took the photos exactly what I
    > wanted there is still the problem that what works in an image on my
    > monitor might not be the best choice for making a print.
    >
    > Scott
    >
    >
    >
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 2, 2007
    #12
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Pat Guest

    On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    > Hi All,
    >
    > My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    > --
    > Wayne J. Cosshall
    > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    > Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    > Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    > Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/


    Wayne, I think you and some of the posts here are chasing ghosts.
    There is no "right or wrong" here. It all depends on the situation
    and what the photo is. Sometimes you going after something artistic
    and sometimes you are do such a high quantity that you want to do
    everything in-camera. For me, the more in-camera the better, but that
    requires learning how to use the camera as well as Photoshop.

    For example, say you are shoot a youth-sports team. You've schedule
    1.5 minute per child including groups shots, etc. You are outside, in
    the shade, with a brightly lit background. You have 1.5 minutes per
    kid, you're using flash compensation, and if you do something wrong it
    requires you to go into photoshop and fix it. Plus, of course, your
    lab doesn't take RAW images and it hates it when you screw with the
    pictures. So what do you do. You do your flash comp in camera, your
    DOF in cameras, and your cropping in-camera. They you upload and go.
    Pretty simple and pretty quick. If you know what you're doing it
    works great. If you don't your pretty well sc**wed. Know your
    cameras, know your equipment, know what you're doing and it works
    fine.

    OTOH, if you're going for something more artsy, then you do it in PS.
    If you want something like this:
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/NYC_Skyline/
    you cannot do it in the camera for a number of reasons -- not the
    least of which is that it would require getting the sun to set in the
    south.

    I don't think this could be done in-camera, either
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/Watsons/

    but this is in-camera
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/Stuntshow/

    Here's the same picture, in-camera and in PS
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/Kevin/
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/Bucky/

    Finally, just to spice up your debate a bit, here's a picture that was
    done on film and manipulated in the darkroom, back in the good old
    days.
    http://www.artisticphotography.us/John_Sebastian/
    Pat, Jun 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Hi Pat,

    I'm actually not trying to argue that there is a right or wrong
    approach. (see my article on right/wrong thinking:
    http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1005) Rather by getting
    people to think about how they operate it may open up new lines of
    activity. I think I say in the article that I believe most photographers
    fall between the extremes. Further to that, see the followup article:
    http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=1016

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



    Pat wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 9:08 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> My latest post on the HP professional photography blog is up on this topic:http://h20325.www2.hp.com/blogs/graphicarts/archive/2007/05/25/3484.html
    >>
    >> Cheers,
    >>
    >> Wayne
    >>
    >> --
    >> Wayne J. Cosshall
    >> Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    >> Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    >> Publisher, Experimental Digital Photographyhttp://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    >> Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/

    >
    > Wayne, I think you and some of the posts here are chasing ghosts.
    > There is no "right or wrong" here. It all depends on the situation
    > and what the photo is. Sometimes you going after something artistic
    > and sometimes you are do such a high quantity that you want to do
    > everything in-camera. For me, the more in-camera the better, but that
    > requires learning how to use the camera as well as Photoshop.
    >
    > For example, say you are shoot a youth-sports team. You've schedule
    > 1.5 minute per child including groups shots, etc. You are outside, in
    > the shade, with a brightly lit background. You have 1.5 minutes per
    > kid, you're using flash compensation, and if you do something wrong it
    > requires you to go into photoshop and fix it. Plus, of course, your
    > lab doesn't take RAW images and it hates it when you screw with the
    > pictures. So what do you do. You do your flash comp in camera, your
    > DOF in cameras, and your cropping in-camera. They you upload and go.
    > Pretty simple and pretty quick. If you know what you're doing it
    > works great. If you don't your pretty well sc**wed. Know your
    > cameras, know your equipment, know what you're doing and it works
    > fine.
    >
    > OTOH, if you're going for something more artsy, then you do it in PS.
    > If you want something like this:
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/NYC_Skyline/
    > you cannot do it in the camera for a number of reasons -- not the
    > least of which is that it would require getting the sun to set in the
    > south.
    >
    > I don't think this could be done in-camera, either
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/Watsons/
    >
    > but this is in-camera
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/Stuntshow/
    >
    > Here's the same picture, in-camera and in PS
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/Kevin/
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/Bucky/
    >
    > Finally, just to spice up your debate a bit, here's a picture that was
    > done on film and manipulated in the darkroom, back in the good old
    > days.
    > http://www.artisticphotography.us/John_Sebastian/
    >
    >
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 2, 2007
    #14
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Scott W Guest

    On Jun 1, 6:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    > Hi Scott,
    >
    > I am sure you are missing in your statement all the things that you do
    > do in camera. Even with RAW you are using your lenses, exposure control,
    > framing, perhaps lens filters to get the result that you want?


    Sure, but those are pretty much things that can't be done in post
    processing, or can only be done to a very limited extent.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jun 2, 2007
    #15
  16. True, in my view. But there are people who claim you can do many of
    these things.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com
    Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



    Scott W wrote:
    > On Jun 1, 6:15 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" <> wrote:
    >> Hi Scott,
    >>
    >> I am sure you are missing in your statement all the things that you do
    >> do in camera. Even with RAW you are using your lenses, exposure control,
    >> framing, perhaps lens filters to get the result that you want?

    >
    > Sure, but those are pretty much things that can't be done in post
    > processing, or can only be done to a very limited extent.
    >
    > Scott
    >
    >
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 2, 2007
    #16
  17. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Paul Mitchum, Jun 2, 2007
    #17
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > True, in my view. But there are people who claim you can do many of
    > these things.


    You can't duplicate a polarizer filter effect in photoshop.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 2, 2007
    #18
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <>
    wrote:

    > You can't duplicate a polarizer filter effect in photoshop.



    Not easily, but you could increase the contrast and saturation in just
    the sky. Removing glare sparkles from water scenes would be pretty tough
    but it could be done.

    Here is a scene I took to test what a polarizer could do. Granted, there
    are no clouds or water, but I'm sure you could get the second picture to
    look like the first in Photoshop:

    http://www.mhmyers.com/temp/polarizer.jpg

    --
    m-m
    M-M, Jun 2, 2007
    #19
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

    > I think it is unfair to call people mindless drones. When I am in
    > Photoshop I am neither being mindless, nor do I drone (though I do
    > talk to myself sometimes :)


    It wasn't meant to be a slam. You ask a question and you got my opinion.
    Either way is a valid way of doing things to meet an end goal. It's just
    that people now have forgotten what photography is all about. We have Dx0
    Pro to "correct" lens distortions that would otherwise be used creatively in
    photography. We have people post images that are so Photshopped they lost
    any "awe" appeal because they are so sterile and perfect that one questions
    if they are real.

    > Photoshop is as valid a place to create as the darkroom once was for
    > me. I also do much in camera. Perhaps you should have read my post on
    > right/wrong thinking :)


    Not true. Darkroom antics will never be on the same level as what can be
    done with Photoshop.







    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Magnficent Bastard

    Post Your Three Favorite Movies - I Post Facts About You

    The Magnficent Bastard, Oct 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    249
    Views:
    3,331
    Soapy
    Jan 11, 2004
  2. 3D PhotoPro

    You can be 3D and FLIP Photographer

    3D PhotoPro, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    281
    3D PhotoPro
    Oct 13, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    263
  4. Eddie McFee
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    648
    Michael McGrath, Portraitist .
    Feb 14, 2010
  5. Eddie McFee
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    461
    Michael McGrath, Portraitist .
    Feb 14, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page