Can I ask a question about acquisition?
Discussion
I used to run a film production company (very much on the operations side - I had producers, directors, editors etc... that did the technical stuff) and the principals were extremely similar to when I was a pro musician on the recording side.
Write script - Write song
Pre-production - Pre-production
Shooting - Recording
Rough edit - Mixing
Final edit - Mastering
Only main difference is that most film directors never get to play live.
So, my point being, we'd always try to get the best sound at source with top quality instruments, amplification, great studio & desk etc... and as long as the frequencies were separated properly then mixing was easy and minimal mastering was required.
I've just got hold of my first DSLR (Nikon D80) and I have a feeling that I will only use Photoshop etc.. when I wan't to add nothing more than the final polish.
I'm getting the impression that many people snap away and then rely on post production to make the images. It seems that many people find it easier to learn PS than the delicate balance between the camera settings and light.
Would I be right? If so - it's not a path I want to go down and want to learn the relationships first and then move on to the post side.
What is your take on this?
Write script - Write song
Pre-production - Pre-production
Shooting - Recording
Rough edit - Mixing
Final edit - Mastering
Only main difference is that most film directors never get to play live.
So, my point being, we'd always try to get the best sound at source with top quality instruments, amplification, great studio & desk etc... and as long as the frequencies were separated properly then mixing was easy and minimal mastering was required.
I've just got hold of my first DSLR (Nikon D80) and I have a feeling that I will only use Photoshop etc.. when I wan't to add nothing more than the final polish.
I'm getting the impression that many people snap away and then rely on post production to make the images. It seems that many people find it easier to learn PS than the delicate balance between the camera settings and light.
Would I be right? If so - it's not a path I want to go down and want to learn the relationships first and then move on to the post side.
What is your take on this?
Edited by Asterix on Thursday 14th August 18:58
Ah right, I think by 'acquisiton' you mean 'taking a photo'...?!
My take on it is this.
Just like in the days of yore, film, dragons and all that, try to get it as right as you can in camera.
However, realise that DSLRs often don't give beautiful saturated images straight of the box, even if the exposure is perfect. If you shoot JPG the camera will apply a set of parameters to your image which it thinks will work. If you shoot RAW, you get to apply them yourself later.
So if you shoot RAW then post-processing is essential - like making a print from a negative, it has to be done, and because you can apply it manually at leisure with bespoke software in a powerful computer, it should give better results than the camera's microchip and quick guess. If you shoot JPG, you could argue that it's optional, but a tweak here and there will often help.
Having Photoshop is IMHO to make good images look better, not to polish turds.
So the answer is - both!
My take on it is this.
Just like in the days of yore, film, dragons and all that, try to get it as right as you can in camera.
However, realise that DSLRs often don't give beautiful saturated images straight of the box, even if the exposure is perfect. If you shoot JPG the camera will apply a set of parameters to your image which it thinks will work. If you shoot RAW, you get to apply them yourself later.
So if you shoot RAW then post-processing is essential - like making a print from a negative, it has to be done, and because you can apply it manually at leisure with bespoke software in a powerful computer, it should give better results than the camera's microchip and quick guess. If you shoot JPG, you could argue that it's optional, but a tweak here and there will often help.
Having Photoshop is IMHO to make good images look better, not to polish turds.
So the answer is - both!
I'd agree with Simpo, if you can get the best picture you can out of the camera then you have the most to work with.
I'm finding that I'm doing most processing with Lightroom now, only using photoshop for a few things..
So, learn the use the camera, learn to use the software and make your workflow as smooth as possible so it is not a chore..
D
I'm finding that I'm doing most processing with Lightroom now, only using photoshop for a few things..
So, learn the use the camera, learn to use the software and make your workflow as smooth as possible so it is not a chore..
D
Shooting jpg and printing the pics as they come is like using film and getting it processed at boots, shooting RAW and messing in photoshop is like developing your own film in your own darkroom.
Either way you get a picture, and either method may or may not be appropriate for the intended usage of the pictures taken. Photoshop is a tool for manipulating what you have created with the camera, I think a lot of people like messing about with it, but I don't think anyone really takes pictures with the intention of sorting out poor camerawork later.
Either way you get a picture, and either method may or may not be appropriate for the intended usage of the pictures taken. Photoshop is a tool for manipulating what you have created with the camera, I think a lot of people like messing about with it, but I don't think anyone really takes pictures with the intention of sorting out poor camerawork later.
It's something to do with pigs ears and sows purses.
If the muso plays something right, it's piss easy to mix it
If he/she is a crock, then one has to spend ages trying (and mostly failing) to make it work.
If I f
k up when taking a photo, the chances are it'll look crap.
Working on it in PS will help, but if it ain't there, I can't fix it.
Shooting RAW gives one a fighting chance
If the muso plays something right, it's piss easy to mix it
If he/she is a crock, then one has to spend ages trying (and mostly failing) to make it work.
If I f
k up when taking a photo, the chances are it'll look crap.Working on it in PS will help, but if it ain't there, I can't fix it.
Shooting RAW gives one a fighting chance
Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 14th August 19:25
Asterix said:
I got CaptureNX with the camera so maybe I can play with that.
You have a Cray supercomputer? Good luck chap 
If you're new to DSLRs you might do better to do one step at a time, eg learn the camera first using JPGs for convenience, then learn about RAW processing if you feel the need to. Yes, it's better, but it does take some head-getting-round. In short, it's probably good not to try to learn everything all at once.
Asterix said:
What is your take on this?
I'd say, to some degree, you're right.I've noticed a similar habit with video cameraman- of which I'm one, and a relatively young one at that. I've noticed there are a lot of camermen running around with cameras on auto, who've not really learnt the basics, and rely on post to fix things. As much as I think its great to be able to do things in post, i'm im quite old school at heart- If you can get it perfect in field, then do so! Who wants to bugger around for hours in post when it could have been shot perfectly?- after all, it only takes a few extra minutes to remove things you dont want from frame, rather than spend hours airbrushing them out after.
Im a big fan of using filters rather than applying them in post too- things like ND grads make such a difference, and cant really be replicated quite the same way in post.
I think technology is making people a little lazy, but that also means the rewards are there for people who have a fundamental understanding of the basics. The lazier video cameramen get, the more (i hope!) that my footage will start to stand apart
Edited by Fordo on Thursday 14th August 21:42
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff