Well, I completed my kit!

[Padaung]

I think people are forgetting the difference between a shot straight from the camera and one that has been post processed. Look around and you will see that life rarely is as contrasty, bright, saturated and sharpened as photos often look (esp. what we see in magazines and adverts these days). The pics SLC has posted look as if they were taken towards the start or end of a day in low light. That is how things often look at those times of day - pretty dark and low in contrast. Sure he could have used a longer shutter speed and brightened the scene up, but was there then a risk of camera shake? We don't know these things. Anyway, his shots are easily corrected in post. I know a lot of photographers who deliberately underexpose by between 1/3-2/3rds of a stop to preserve more highlight detail, and then correct in post. Also, we don't know how his camera is set up. I have all settings on my camera set to neutral, which leaves me with pretty flat, lifeless pictures straight out of the camera, and I then (once again) tweak in post.

And!, I find that Nikon cameras tend to be more conservative with colours and saturation than Canon, which give results (to my eyes) that are more realistic to the actual scene photographed, but which isn't necessarily the most aesthetically pleasing when viewed later on a screen or in print.

Each to their own, and we all work in our own particular ways with different aims...

Thoughts on the matter downloaded, better get back to work

 

[compuwar]

I know a lot of photographers who deliberately underexpose by between 1/3-2/3rds of a stop to preserve more highlight detail, and then correct in post.

Unless you're shooting JPEG, your camera doesn't saturate by default, but it does expose by default- so getting it right in-camera seems to be a much, much better option to me, especially since it changes how much adjustment you can make in post processing.

Also, you seem to know a lot of photographers who will never come close to getting the image quality their camera is capable of providing. Now, of course it's up to them to do so- but it seems to me that crippling 100% of your images just to "save" what's likely to be less than 2% is an interesting value proposition compared to the alternative, but it's certainly less work than learning to get it right in-camera. I don't see a lot of point in paying a premium for anything other than an entry-level camera if you're going to throw away a good portion of the quality you can achieve, but to each their own I suppose.

There are times when you *have* to not mess up a shot, and if you don't have the experience to expose properly for the subject and lighting, or if you're dealing with fast-moving objects in variable light it's a valid strategy, but I'd suggest that anyone employing it as a general-purpose strategy would be better-served by taking the camera off of auto for a while and learning how their camera actually exposes under varying conditions and adjusting for it (or learning to get an incident reading or meter off a gray card...)

For those playing along at home- here is why you want to put your highlights as far to the right as makes sense for your vision of what you're photographing[1]:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

If you're a digital photographer, you should read it. For those who are particularly concerned about blowing out a single (normally red) channel, Google of the day is "UniWB."

Paul
[1] Please note that I'm not necessarily advocating that you must hold any detail in the whites- if what you want as a result is "blown" that's a valid choice despite the criticism you'd get online about it.

 

[Razeus]

errm thanks for the comment?

Not sure what that's about but hey, to each his own I guess. Whatever gets you excited.

Edit: I've just had a peak at your Flickr, perhaps you can teach me to take photos? I'd love to learn to take mindless snapshots of the city from atop a high building or hill. I bow to your photographic excellence and request to be educated

This one is particularly fascinating, how did you manage it?

SLC

ummm, wtf?

All I did was congrats you on your purchase. Judging by the photo you took and posted in the OP, it was under exposed and therefore I suggested you learn to take photos and to start with exposure (where learning how to get the proper exposure is the first step to a great photo). Now it could be my fault I didn't read the entire thread before, but after seeing some posters correcting your photo, I assumed differently.

As for the photo you are referencing for me, that's fine. I don't claim to be the end all photographer. I take photos and Flickr what I like to get opinions. It's merely for enjoyment, and I don't spend all my time researching photography. It's a past time for me, so no, I won't post anything that shows my "photographic excellence". However, I'm quite sure you can find several (in fact many) of my Flickr photos noteworthy - so it's interesting you point out a shot that you claim is "mindless" as if to say I have absolutely no photographic skill. Please... However, I feel your comments were a direct result of my comment, which you took as an insult. Perhaps it was the tone of my post?

I know my fellow Mac users can be a little above themselves, but your comment and private message you sent me were ridiculous.