Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?
There is lots of room in the photography pool. It's like meeting someone who says they're a painter. Are they a house painter? Sign painter? Train car tagger? Surrealist? Realist? Abstract artist? Run & gun street photography is well suited to in camera adjustments, where images end up relating to each other across many scenarios.
My photos invariably stray from what was there, so don't use in camera tweaks at all beyond shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. RAW photos in my world are rough sketches, where what I felt is best brought out after the fact and some semblance of balance can be found.
No one way is better than any other. The most important bit is about 6 inches behind the camera.
View attachment 414180View attachment 414182
Weird. I hiked 10K yesterday through a snowy forest and took 3 photos.Whatever gets you to your vision. There are the folks who go full 30fps auto and move the camera around in a torus shape relying of the sheer number of exposures and autofocus. They then use AI to sort the hits from misses and cull down again with AI. They end up with one amazing shot that they then put through a variety of prebaked filters and more AI. The end result looks amazing. Do I do that? Nope. That kind of thing goes against my photographic principles but if it works for them it works.
Weird. I hiked 10K yesterday though a snowy forest and took 3 photos.
Weird. I hiked 10K yesterday though a snowy forest and took 3 photos.
Whatever gets you to your vision. There are the folks who go full 30fps auto and move the camera around in a torus shape relying of the sheer number of exposures and autofocus. They then use AI to sort the hits from misses and cull down again with AI. They end up with one amazing shot that they then put through a variety of prebaked filters and more AI. The end result looks amazing. Do I do that? Nope. That kind of thing goes against my photographic principles but if it works for them it works.
Why bother with 30fps. Just let AI create the picture in the computer while you sit in your pajamas sipping your morning coffee?
Greetings... I just joined this forum recently and was just perusing it. I came upon this thread about film to DSLR. Without going to nuts about it, I have the same issue of going from film years ago to digital. My complaint to any of the manufacturers is why can't they concentrate on photography as the process and not the programming of a "handheld" computer? No where in my user manuals are there any pointers in how an image is made. Not the endless setting up of a DSLR, but some fundamentals of what, as a photographer, one should be looking for. Textures, forms, color, B&W, f-stops...all of it. I have just taken out my old OM1-n, got new batteries and can't wait to use it. One shot at a time. Not like an M-16 that is a "spray and pray" techinque that you see nowadays. Make every shot count. 24 or 36. Think each one through... Good night!
One advantage of shooting with film over many years before going to digital is you will have more discernment with what you shoot so you won't bloat your hard drive with drivel.
In my mind, there is little difference between an analog photographer trying to "expose for the shadows and print for the highlights" and a digital photographer trying to "expose to the right" (ETTR). Both are strategies aimed at practicing the craft of photography in a way that minimizes the limitations of the media they are working with.
but I don't push hard to the right because the histogram isn't too high resolution, and it would be easy to clip off small amounts of bright pixels.
Yes! Ansel Adams got it right in the camera - yet used dodging and burning in needed areas to produce his final prints. However, he always preached about getting it right in the camera first. If I find that I have to spend more than five minutes in post, I missed the shot. Merry Christmas brother!Hypothetical question:
If dodging and/or burning is required to make a satisfactory darkroom print, did the photographer fail to get it right in the camera?
Great shot man!Greetings... I just joined this forum recently and was just perusing it. I came upon this thread about film to DSLR. Without going to nuts about it, I have the same issue of going from film years ago to digital. My complaint to any of the manufacturers is why can't they concentrate on photography as the process and not the programming of a "handheld" computer? No where in my user manuals are there any pointers in how an image is made. Not the endless setting up of a DSLR, but some fundamentals of what, as a photographer, one should be looking for. Textures, forms, color, B&W, f-stops...all of it. I have just taken out my old OM1-n, got new batteries and can't wait to use it. One shot at a time. Not like an M-16 that is a "spray and pray" techinque that you see nowadays. Make every shot count. 24 or 36. Think each one through... Good night!
Welcome aboard!some fundamentals of what, as a photographer, one should be looking for. Textures, forms, color, B&W, f-stops...all of it.
Blown highlights and blocked up shadow warnings (can be toggled on & off)
even more so turning this on in camera and any highlights that might blow out turn black
Definitely. I'm not an EVF/EVIL user, but use the 'blinkies' on my DSLR all the time. What isn't captured in the first place, you can't work with later on.
For me, a digital file is really much like a negative and the final look of the image is decided later on. It's a bit like using slide film vs. negative film. I'm firmly in the latter camp, but I know the magic of the former. However, in the digital realm, I don't think there's much magic to the "virtual slide" approach. It's fast and convenient, for sure, but overall just less flexible. My digital images involve varying degrees of post processing; for the most part (esp. the color ones) they look like they might have been straight photos of the original scene, but much of the time, they really aren't. They're doctored to bring out what appealed to me in the original scene - not what it looked like in a literal sense.
View attachment 414229
Left: RAW preview as shown by Windows Photo viewer. Right: as printed and shared here on Photrio.
I think that's the best principle to begin with, as hard as it can be, though. I can relate. There's always those voices representing what we *think* that others expect/like/demand, and they sometimes drown out the signal that really matters - your own recollection of your feelings at the moment preceding the button-press, your hopes for how that image might turn out; in short, the magic of the moment.stop worrying what others might think
I think that's the best principle to begin with, as hard as it can be, though. I can relate. There's always those voices representing what we *think* that others expect/like/demand, and they sometimes drown out the signal that really matters - your own recollection of your feelings at the moment preceding the button-press, your hopes for how that image might turn out; in short, the magic of the moment.
By extension, this is another reason why I don't like to work with in-camera JPEGs. They are rendered in a particular way and even if I make a bunch of presets that give looks I generally like, the net effect is still that the image immediately after pressing the button looks in a certain way, and the odds of that look aligning perfectly with my hopes, expectations or feelings at the moment are near zero. Yet, the moment I see the image pop up on the screen, that interpretation starts to compete with my vision. Since the latter is by definition a weaker and more complex signal than the concrete visual impact of the image as shown, the vision loses. I'd much rather have a p*ss-poor RAW preview that looks like utter sh**; as long as it shows the frame boundaries and where tonal information is present, it's fine. It's much easier to work towards the desired end result starting with something that's not already interpreted into a distinct direction, as a preset-fashioned camera JPEG typically is.
I think people worry far too much about clipping - at both ends of the histogram.
I can't think of many images where the important part of the image is close to that area of the histogram, and anything there is more often than not a distraction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?