Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
So I ran across this Tshirt http://teespring.com/real-photographers which inspired this post... How many of you agree with this belief or sentiment that "Real Photographers Get It Right In The Camera" Personally there are times I don't want to get it 100% in the Camera as it gives me more flexibility in post with the direction of the image for example some times I might take an image a different direction that I had originally planned and I if it was shot too dark or too light for a specific look then I can't go the other direction with it if I decide to without losing quality or information. But other times I also shoot to get it very close to perfect in Camera at others times. So generally I shoot middle of the road for maximum flexibility. Do you shoot to get it perfect or with post in mind?
Photographer
Arizona Shoots
Posts: 28657
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I don't think paying clients care how you got there, only that you got there.
Photographer
Frank Lewis Photography
Posts: 14492
Winter Park, Florida, US
I try to get as close to right or correct in camera as I can. It's a holdover from when I only shot film. I don't let that getting it right in camera keep me from doing some fancy editing in Photoshop though...
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 13200
Brooklyn, New York, US
Depends who you ask ?
I do what works for me
Not focused on how others do things
Photographer
FjellstadFoto
Posts: 1
Mysen, Østfold, Norway
I always AIM to get it right in camera and not rely on post to save my butt, though when you experiment with weird or new angles/light/subjects it is hard to really know what is ''right''. Also, even if I feel that I got it right in camera there might be intances where I completely change the feel of the image in post. So, yeah..
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9777
Bellingham, Washington, US
Everybody who takes pictures is a real photographer and they can all do whatever they want as far as I am concerned. If I like the picture they took, it is good.
There is an old saying "Even a blind pig finds an acorn here and there."
That is a great T shirt, it will warn me ahead of time that I don't want to waste my time talking about photography to the person wearing it.
Photographer
DAVISICON
Posts: 644
San Antonio, Texas, US
Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
Depends who you ask ?
I do what works for me
Not focused on how others do things +1 to each his own individual style
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
While I think perfection every time you try is a noble goal, I have to admit that my mom had to try twice before she got me and even then, the next two tries were (to my mind) not quite as successful.  Kidding aside, I think that excessive (note the word excessive) concern for getting it right the first time is as bad as an over-reliance on using all the bells and whistles on the camera for every shot. Both have a tendency to reduce the result from an an artistic exercise for the both photographer and the model to an exhibition of the mechanical capabilities of the tool, which often results in somewhat pedestrian, uninspiring pictures. Oftentimes the second look in post or the second click of the shutter to improve on the initial result makes all the difference in the world. All IMHO as always, of course.
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
FjellstadFoto wrote:
I always AIM to get it right in camera and not rely on post to save my butt, though when you experiment with weird or new angles/light/subjects it is hard to really know what is ''right''. Also, even if I feel that I got it right in camera there might be intances where I completely change the feel of the image in post. So, yeah.. Yep!
Most of the time.
But, there are a lot of things that are easier to fix in post.
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
FjellstadFoto wrote:
I always AIM to get it right in camera and not rely on post to save my butt, though when you experiment with weird or new angles/light/subjects it is hard to really know what is ''right''. Also, even if I feel that I got it right in camera there might be instances where I completely change the feel of the image in post. So, yeah.. When I have certain goal in mind for the image and don't need the flexibility. That's what I do also. I might get the shirt just to remind me to seek perfection or close to it. I did a shoot the other night that is so perfect right out of the camera I almost don't want to retouch it. So I'll probably just go very light.
I do try to get it right in camera as much as possible on things like correcting bad hair and little details like that as it saves me time in post. Basically I go with what ever route is going to be faster and easier... During Shoot or In Post.
Shadow Dancer wrote:
Everybody who takes pictures is a real photographer and they can all do whatever they want as far as I am concerned. If I like the picture they took, it is good.
There is an old saying "Even a blind pig finds an acorn here and there."
That is a great T shirt, it will warn me ahead of time that I don't want to waste my time talking about photography to the person wearing it. I disagree that everyone that take a picture is a "Real Photographer" they make take photos but just because someone takes a picture does not make them a photographer. That's part of what's wrong with this industry these days. Everyone thinks they are and most are not and you can see it in their work. Like you said "Even a blind pig finds an acorn here and there."
A Quality aka Real photographer should be able to put out quality work on a consistent basis not just get lucky now and then.
But that's just my opinion.
Photographer
Barry Kidd Photography
Posts: 3351
Red Lion, Pennsylvania, US
Getting the photo right in the camera is a noble thing. I believe that it is important for us to always try and get our exposure correct. It's also important to try and get our highlight and shadow detail within that exposure correct.
The problem with people that try and or say that they get it correct in camera is that there really is no such thing. This is particularly true when we speak about purist. Purist like to say that they do it like we did it in the old days before all the digital correction was available for it to us. But in reality it was never like that. Anyone that ever shot film knows that we carried all sorts of different films with this. Would carry low contrast and high contrast films. We carried black and white end even various different types of black and white films.
I know for example that if I wanted to shoot a high contrast super saturated photo using film I would use something like Fujifilm Vevia 50. These days in the digital world cameras are set to exposed to a specific value. Nikon for example set to expose at “something like” an 18.3% grade value or some garbage which is the average of Asian and Caucasian skin tone. Because of this digital images are often flat or at least have a flatter tone curve all the way across the board.
In the end we do the same as when shot film, we only choose our saturation and contrast after the fact rather than before. That doesn't mean that we did not make those choices in the past. There was always a choice and there is no such thing as getting it right in the camera with out including that choice now or in the old days.
Photographer
sospix
Posts: 23772
Orlando, Florida, US
I don't even know what all the danged buttons do on the cameras I shoot with . . . I'm lucky ifin I git anything atal ta come outta them . . .  Use every tool available to you when you're producing an image, the camera is just one of tools on the list . . . I guarantee every master of photography from the past would do the same, were they available to them at the time . . . SOS
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6680
Dallas, Texas, US
Getting it as close as possible in camera is the best route...however (with digital), pixels created from exposure in camera are identical to pixels created in photoshop.
Learning to use a camera properly to create excellent images takes knowledge, practice, skill and talent. So does photoshop...if not more so. IMHO, people who advocate "getting it right in camera - never using post programs except for the most minor adjustments" are cheating themselves of the potential to produce tremendously better finished photos.
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9777
Bellingham, Washington, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
FjellstadFoto wrote:
I always AIM to get it right in camera and not rely on post to save my butt, though when you experiment with weird or new angles/light/subjects it is hard to really know what is ''right''. Also, even if I feel that I got it right in camera there might be intances where I completely change the feel of the image in post. So, yeah..
When I have certain goal in mind for the image and don't need the flexibility. That's what I do also. I might get the shirt just to remind me to seek perfection or close to it. I did a shoot the other night that is so perfect right out of the camera I almost don't want to retouch it. So I'll probably just go very light.
I disagree that everyone that take a picture is a "Real Photographer" they make take photos but just because someone takes a picture does not make them a photographer. That's part of what's wrong with this industry these days. Everyone thinks they are and most are not and you can see it in their work. Like you said "Even a blind pig finds an acorn here and there."
A Quality aka Real photographer should be able to put out quality work on a consistent basis not just get lucky now and then.
But that's just my opinion. Semantics skewed by subjectivity I guess. We will have to agree to disagree as it is a pointless quibble at best.
Photographer
Looknsee Photography
Posts: 26342
Portland, Oregon, US
You may not know this, but Ansel Adams was a classically trained musician (piano).
He said (paraphrasing) that the negative is like the musical score, but the final print is like the performance.
I think this is still true (for the most part) today -- while there is a great amount of manipulation available nowadays (i.e. photo-editing), you really can't call it a photograph anymore if the elements of the final don't come from the original exposure(s). (Yes, nowadays, one can easily combine elements from multiple images, and that's okay, in the name of art, but if you have to create elements via brushwork on the computer, it's something else).
In my experience, a great negative or a great digital image practically prints itself, but no amount of manipulation (at least at my modest skill level) can save a poorly crafted (e.g. exposed) image.
That's my opinion.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
Sure; in this day and age it's encouraged to be:
- An obese fashion model
- A vocal performer who can't sing
It's grossly unfair to expect that the requisite for being a photographer is the ability to take a competent picture.
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9777
Bellingham, Washington, US
J O H N A L L A N wrote:
Sure; in this day and age it's encouraged to be:
- An obese fashion model
- A vocal performer who can't sing
It's grossly unfair to expect that the requisite for being a photographer is the ability to take a competent picture. So obese people should not have a part in fashion? That is only for skinny people? Hmm. It would be different if it was a competition sport.
Vocal performers who can't sing? Like Bob Dylan on his first album in 1962? We are all lucky he did not stop, some of the best songs written in modern pop music came from his pen. His story-telling vocal style comes off as genuine and that matters more than somebody who has great technical ability but no soul.
The only criteria needed to judge a photograph is to look at it and see if you like it. There are very few truly great photographers. There are lots of photographers who have a high level of consistency and technique but somehow miss the mark on greatness. There are literally billions of people taking photos and some of these photos are totally amazing despite the fact they were snapshots taken on a cell phone in the default setting. They are ALL photographers, from the first exposure.
It is what it is.
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
You may not know this, but Ansel Adams was a classically trained musician (piano).
He said (paraphrasing) that the negative is like the musical score, but the final print is like the performance.
I think this is still true (for the most part) today -- while there is a great amount of manipulation available nowadays (i.e. photo-editing), you really can't call it a photograph anymore if the elements of the final don't come from the original exposure(s). (Yes, nowadays, one can easily combine elements from multiple images, and that's okay, in the name of art, but if you have to create elements via brushwork on the computer, it's something else).
In my experience, a great negative or a great digital image practically prints itself, but no amount of manipulation (at least at my modest skill level) can save a poorly crafted (e.g. exposed) image.
That's my opinion. I have to disagree with "but no amount of manipulation (at least at my modest skill level) can save a poorly crafted (e.g. exposed) image." but it could be that it's your skill level with photoshop as you said. It's daunting program at first with a steep learning curve. But once you get good with it, it can be your best friend.
I have always called myself a Photographic Artist. Because most of the time I'm only half done when it leaves the camera and the rest is my post skill. I'm by no means a purist except when I shoot Polaroids and even then I sometime make digitally altered versions.
But I do think it's an important to be able to take good quality images right out of the camera especially if you are being hired for job that require that and doing a lot of post work with cut into your profit margin.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
i prefer to get it left in camera
Photographer
TomFRohwer
Posts: 1601
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
"Real Photographers Get It Right In The Camera" Now I'm curious which camera shoots the CMYK files my customers need for offset printing... ;-)
(Not that I would recommend photographers to provide CMYK files without having a lot of knowledge and experience in pre press and without knowing the parameters of the specific printing process*... But that statement is just nonsense because there often is a long way from the photographer's brain and eye to the final product. Wherever and however that may be.)
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
A Quality aka Real photographer should be able to put out quality work on a consistent basis not just get lucky now and then. +1
________________________
*) The pre press folks will like to kill you...
Photographer
Nico Simon Princely
Posts: 1972
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Shadow Dancer wrote:
So obese people should not have a part in fashion? That is only for skinny people? Hmm. It would be different if it was a competition sport.
Vocal performers who can't sing? Like Bob Dylan on his first album in 1962? We are all lucky he did not stop, some of the best songs written in modern pop music came from his pen. His story-telling vocal style comes off as genuine and that matters more than somebody who has great technical ability but no soul.
The only criteria needed to judge a photograph is to look at it and see if you like it. There are very few truly great photographers. There are lots of photographers who have a high level of consistency and technique but somehow miss the mark on greatness. There are literally billions of people taking photos and some of these photos are totally amazing despite the fact they were snapshots taken on a cell phone in the default setting. They are ALL photographers, from the first exposure.
It is what it is. So then by that logic... If a person puts out a fire they are a fire fighter?
Or if a person cooks a meal are they are a chef?
Sorry but someone taking photos with their phone is not a photographer. They are someone taking photos with a phone.
Once again this is what is eroding this industry. You have people that have no clue saying they are photographers under cutting quality professionals with quality gear, skill, knowledge and talent.
Now if you're a natural and your work is amazing and you can produce quality work great... I'm not saying you need to have a degree or 20 years experience. Just that you produce quality work on a consistent basis. As opposed to someone that really has no idea what they are doing. I'm also not saying you need to know all technical aspects down to the minutia. Just that you can deliver what you promise which is quality work.
How many of these so called photographers would know how to set up and lighting the needs of their client, direct the models, and give the look requested?
I myself also style my models, and come up with concepts as well very often and I won't even go into the post aspects. But they are equally as important. That's not just taking a snapshot.
And to say that someone taking a picture with their cell phone is a photographer is just as insulting as saying that some one that plays paint ball on the weekends is a Marine.
I think that's the whole point of the shirt actually.
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
So much bullshit in this thread I don't even know where to begin....
A competent photographer is able to pre-visualize exactly what image he needs to capture (whether on film or sensor) for his desired outcome, keeping in mind the entire workflow and how each step in that workflow will effect the final image.
People quote Adams, yet I'm not sure how much they've read of his work... Or those who disagreed with him...
Anyway, if you're shooting for composite (something I do) then you need to capture an image that will allow you to create the composite. If you're shooting film with the intent of making a darkroom print (something I also do) then you need to make a plethora of decisions before you take the shot.
If you're shooting chromes on a set, (something, yet again, I do) then you better have everything nailed exactly right at the moment you click the shutter.
A competent photographer is not surprised by the result (unless the purpose of the shot is to experiment with new ideas or techniques in order to master them). If you're shooting digitally and you are simply taking a portrait there is no reason to not get it right in camera, other than incompetence.
Photographer
Keith Moody
Posts: 548
Phoenix, Arizona, US
I try to get my images the way I want them when I take them. I hate doing all that post crap. It's like being a goddamned mortician, restructuring faces, re-doing make up... I'd rather spend my time taking pictures. I do not use Photoshop at all anymore, not in 5 years. Granted, my images don't look all fancy smancy like some images on this site but I prefer a more natural, realistic looking image, blemishes and all. I do however, use Lightroom for minor fixes. Also, I'm not really trying to a glamour photographer. It's just hobby.
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
TRUE, real photographers get it right in-camera as right as they can that is. But then, a real photographer knows how to push and pull, dodge and burn to get the final result that he or she had in mind. One should always strive to do ones best each and every time.
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 2731
Los Angeles, California, US
In the Commercial Work I've had done I have found that getting the photo I want and the client wants in camera saves me a world of time and impresses clients. I get recommended because of this. In two particular recent jobs I shot them in under 5 minutes. I think deeply beforehand what I want to do. I even doodle sketch in photoshop the photo idea before going to work.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Shadow Dancer wrote:
So obese people should not have a part in fashion? That is only for skinny people? Hmm. It would be different if it was a competition sport.
![https://www.fpsumo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/sumo-tournament-3.jpg]()
Vocal performers who can't sing? Like Bob Dylan on his first album in 1962? We are all lucky he did not stop, some of the best songs written in modern pop music came from his pen. His story-telling vocal style comes off as genuine and that matters more than somebody who has great technical ability but no soul.
The only criteria needed to judge a photograph is to look at it and see if you like it. There are very few truly great photographers. There are lots of photographers who have a high level of consistency and technique but somehow miss the mark on greatness. There are literally billions of people taking photos and some of these photos are totally amazing despite the fact they were snapshots taken on a cell phone in the default setting. They are ALL photographers, from the first exposure.
It is what it is.
Photographer
Rob Photosby
Posts: 4810
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Looknsee Photography wrote:
You may not know this, but Ansel Adams was a classically trained musician (piano).
He said (paraphrasing) that the negative is like the musical score, but the final print is like the performance. Excellent analogy that reveals the ignorance on the tee-shirt
Photographer
Stephoto Photography
Posts: 20158
Amherst, Massachusetts, US
I get it as perfect as I possibly can in camera, then I perfect it in post
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 22232
Stamford, Connecticut, US
Looknsee Photography wrote:
You may not know this, but Ansel Adams was a classically trained musician (piano).
He said (paraphrasing) that the negative is like the musical score, but the final print is like the performance. Rob Photosby wrote:
Excellent analogy that reveals the ignorance on the tee-shirt Actually, if you'd read his books, rather than just parrot a quote, you'd understand that the ignorance of your statement.
Photographer
Personality Imaging
Posts: 2100
Hoover, Alabama, US
To a certain extent, but even the most expensive cameras have limitations so if you want it perfect you have to do the post work.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
"Real Photographers Get It Right In The Camera" If you put in "the" like that then it's some sort of sex joke.
Although the t-shirt has no "the."
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Real sculptors get it right in the quarry!
Artist/Painter
Hunter GWPB
Posts: 8188
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, US
A photo isn't perfect until Richard Prince transforms it.
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Real sushi chefs get it right on the boat!
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Real suit tailors shear it right off the sheep!
Photographer
Shadow Dancer
Posts: 9777
Bellingham, Washington, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
So then by that logic... If a person puts out a fire they are a fire fighter?
Or if a person cooks a meal are they are a chef?
Sorry but someone taking photos with their phone is not a photographer. They are someone taking photos with a phone.
Once again this is what is eroding this industry. You have people that have no clue saying they are photographers under cutting quality professionals with quality gear, skill, knowledge and talent.
Now if you're a natural and your work is amazing and you can produce quality work great... I'm not saying you need to have a degree or 20 years experience. Just that you produce quality work on a consistent basis. As opposed to someone that really has no idea what they are doing. I'm also not saying you need to know all technical aspects down to the minutia. Just that you can deliver what you promise which is quality work.
How many of these so called photographers would know how to set up and lighting the needs of their client, direct the models, and give the look requested?
I myself also style my models, and come up with concepts as well very often and I won't even go into the post aspects. But they are equally as important. That's not just taking a snapshot.
And to say that someone taking a picture with their cell phone is a photographer is just as insulting as saying that some one that plays paint ball on the weekends is a Marine.
I think that's the whole point of the shirt actually. ROTFLMAO!!!
A search will show that "Getting it right in camera" and "Real photographer" threads are among the oldest and most predictable threads posted in MM history. They rank right up there with Escort threads and like Escort threads they tend towards endless repetition without resolution.
It is my part in this repeat thread to play the annoying voice of the real world, somebody always does that.
I do have to admit that this line is sheer genius:
"And to say that someone taking a picture with their cell phone is a photographer is just as insulting as saying that some one that plays paint ball on the weekends is a Marine."
The difference is that saying "that some one that plays paint ball on the weekends is a Marine" is very disrespectful and could get one into serious trouble under certain circumstances.
The only thing that happens when I say "that someone taking a picture with their cell phone is a photographer" is that individuals with a maligned sense of importance and over inflated ego get all huffy-puffy about a minor difference in terminology.
I would say that anybody who is worried that "people that have no clue saying they are photographers under cutting quality professionals with quality gear, skill, knowledge and talent" should take an objective look at the value of their own work. How is this "hack" able to outsell the true professional if the work is so much better? The "hack" should be no threat at all to a true professional. Being threatened by cell phone photography says much more about the threatened party than it does about the cell phone photographer.
Photography as a business is 95% marketing and 5% making images. Root hog or die.
From Merriam-Webster (note that the first definition is considered to be most commonly used):
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real
1real
adjective re·al ˈrē(-ə)l
: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
: not fake, false, or artificial
: important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer
photographer
noun pho·tog·ra·pher fə-ˈtä-grə-fər
: a person who takes photographs especially as a job
We offered passport photos at Kinko's 20 years ago. Even under the slightly more stringent stipulation following "especially" in the above definition, everybody on the staff was a real photographer even if all they ever took was a single passport photo. There is nothing special about any of the passport photos taken by anyone, nothing at all. Every one of them was taken by a real photographer.
The same is true of "drive-by" real estate photographers and their work. I could go on and on or you could look up all the previous threads for more examples.
OK, you can go back to repeating what has been posted a few hundred times again.
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 8095
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
I've noticed that over the years getting it the best I can in-camera is more and more important to me because it's less time I have to edit images after a shoot. If I spend a bit more time and use a bit more skill and knowledge in the beginning it saves me a huge amount of time in the end. Personally, I like shooting a lot more than I like editing hundreds of images from a client shoot. Also, the better you get the shot in camera, the easier it will be to manipulate it in post if you're looking to do more of a creative angle with it. It's a lot easier to manipulate a good photo into something you really like than it is to fix a bad photo into something you hope will just be OK.
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 8095
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Nico Simon Princely wrote:
And to say that someone taking a picture with their cell phone is a photographer is just as insulting as saying that some one that plays paint ball on the weekends is a Marine. A friend of mine has a great quote she uses a lot, "Everyone has a stove and an oven in their home, that doesn't make them an Iron Chef."
Photographer
NothingIsRealButTheGirl
Posts: 35726
Los Angeles, California, US
Shot By Adam wrote:
A friend of mine has a great quote she uses a lot, "Everyone has a stove and an oven in their home, that doesn't make them an Iron Chef." But if they use it it does make them a cook.
|
Use every tool available to you when you're producing an image, the camera is just one of tools on the list . . . I guarantee every master of photography from the past would do the same, were they available to them at the time . . . 
