Photography Quote of the Week (from David Ziser)
You’ve heard me talk about David Ziser countless times on this blog, and he is one of my favorite Wedding photographers, a gifted instructor, and an amazing blogger to boot. One of the things I admire most about David is that he’s not afraid to take a stance or make a statement about a photography technique, or the photography business, that sometimes flies in the face of the status quo.
Well, I was on David’s site yesterday (DigitalProTalk.com), and I watched a video he did back in October of last year, that detailed a back-lighting problem he was having on location, where he wanted the bride and groom backlit with flash while standing in the shadowy entry way of an elegant home (as seen above—photo by David Ziser). During this video, David said something that really stood out to me—so much so that it’s my “Quote of the Week.” In talking about his lighting challenge he said:
“The fact of the matter is, it’s so easy these days to go ahead and take a photograph with that [fixing it in Photoshop] in mind. Some people say “Oh my gosh; If you don’t get it right in the camera, don’t even bother pressing the button!” but I’m going to disagree with that, because I think we can fuss and fiddle with it out on location, and do everything we can do from having to go into Photoshop or Lightroom, (and I’m going to use Lightroom in this case here). My point is, “Why fuss for 10 minutes” on the job when you can fuss for one minute in Lightroom and basically get the shot that you want?” — David Ziser
Why this struck such a chord with me is that maybe my pendulum has swung too far the other way. I really bend over backwards to get the shot right in the camera, and I probably do spend too much time sometimes on location tweaking a light, or a reflector, or a scrim, because I know I shouldn’t have to fix it in Photoshop. Anyway, it’s some great food for though from someone whose photography and photo editing skills I admire very much. Thanks David, for giving me something to think about this weekend.
Here’s the link to David’s video, which includes his quote: Bridal Location Shoot with David Ziser
David has really opened up the debate here, I think he is has the right approach to solve a problem. However it will limit the direction of the final design because you have already tied yourself up to a technique once in studio.
The real problem is with non commercial photographers such as myself. We are allowed to do crop (big no no but allowed). Levels, and colour balance.
Anymore than this we will lose our jobs, reputation.
I still think if you shoot in camera you leave further options open. I am sick to death of having to compete with non professionals whose pictures are photoshopped to death and are limiting the market. I have kids to feed.
As a professional who does work in the commercial sector, proper photoshop skills do enhance the image. I still prefer the aspect of shooting in camera.
I think Mr Bob Ziser, in dealing with a difficult situation refers to photoshop as a tool to get out of a tricky situation in isolated cases.
There is a growing trend in moviemaking where directors are moving away from CGI due to cost and inflexibility and shooting in camera. Why be hired as a professional photographer and on location your client turns up and looks at a under exposed image imagine the problems that will cause.
Personally photoshop should be used to enhance a already great picture. It would be like a chef deliberately burrning best fillet steak but relying on the sauce to hide the mistake.
The funny thing is I am a photoshop professional and designer. But first and foremost I am a professional photographer, that is what I am hired for.
Hi Scott, great article as always. There’s one nuance to add maybe? There’s a huge difference between: “I’ll take whatever shot I can and then fix some of them, somehow, in photodhop in whatever way I stumble on.” and “Ok, I can go without the speed light here, because at f/11 I’ll definitely have enough leeway with RAW to bring out the details of this porch in photoshop.”
Hey,
I just watched the Photoshop user tv from just before Christmas you showed a nifty little trick for lightroom with advanced settings for the web module.
However you only showed the short curt for mac, how would I get this feature on the pc version.
Happy New Year and best regards.
Theis
I use both techniques- first I spend too long trying to get the shot right in camera, then I spend hours in PS fixing it anyway.
Photoshop is the best thing to happen to photography since the tripod. Love it.
Remember that David shoots several thousand images per wedding. If he spends an additional ten minutes per shot, the wedding could last longer than the marriage.
I think the danger of “permitting” edits in Lightroom or Photoshop for the sake of saving time is that it almost prevents new photographers from learning some very crucial basics to producing a good exposure.
I dont wish that technology slows at all and perhaps we will one day never have to be concerned with lighting or ratios because of those advances but the likes of David Ziser, Joe McNally, Yourself and many others already know the limits of the exposure AND the capabilities of the technology with respect to PS and LR.
I have long detested the “fix it” approach because it is so prevalently used by those who are not experienced or knowledgeable in either realm. The old maxim, garbage in garbage out comes to mind.
Hi Scott. Yes, a very thought provoking post. A skilled practitioner, whatever the trade, will use techniques appropriately. That is the key. This means having a large range of techniques that you are comfortable to use AND being able to employ them APPROPRIATELY – then you are skilled.
The truth is that all photographers, from the beginning of time, all post process to some degree. In the days of film we all “post processed’ in the darkroom. If we used a lab, they “post processed for us”. Now in the digital era we have more choice. If you shoot jpeg, the camera post processes “in camera”. If you shoot RAW, the camera “post processes” and then we can “develop” the image in our preferred RAW processor. The fact is, all images are “post processed to some degree or another- in camera, in a RAW processor, in Photoshop or at the printing lab. In its purest form, “getting it right in camera” only really exists in the minds of the individual.
There is nothing wrong with capturing the best possible “input data” as you release the shutter. However, all that the camera is doing is capturing o`s `and 1`s. How that is “processed” is decided by you AFTER the release. These days it is so much easier and convenient to adjust images. One of the great “post processors” was of course Ansel adams, who would spend months improving images. He was also a great practitioner who once said that if you had to bracket your exposure then you were not very skilled!
I firmly agree with working hard to capture the very best detail in an image. But, having captured that data, there is nothing wrong with using any “appropriate” tool (technique), to process same. Its been done for years.
Interesting to note that “We are allowed to do crop (big no no but allowed). Levels, and colour balance.” So what is wrong in adjusting exposure, fill light, black level, clarity etc? An absurd restriction. These “techniques” have been around for years, we just invoke them differently.
The finest photographers will have at their disposal a huge range of “techniques” and will use them to extract the very finest result possible.
Like it or not “getting it right in camera”, in its purist sense, does not really exist and never has done.
Regards.
Nick
Press work, normally runs like this, find out last minute something is happening. Get to the event get your shots as fast as possible and get it off to the agency ASAP. I have driven hundreds of miles in the night to get to an event, spend ten seconds shooting, having to get a tabloid, broadsheet,portrait,landscape, shot in the bag. The subsequent workflow on a park bench, taxi or in the car is fast, find your keepers carry out an image adjust, resize and send off to the agency before the other 15 togs on site get theirs in. You get it right in camera.
Commercial Work, there is a trend to do the dave hill look, or high key , fake HDR you cannot present files like this to a client. I have had clients and art directors just ask to see the raw files and they do the post work. The less a pixel has been bent in post it is better. I am sick of the over saturated slide film look as much as the Dave Hill look. I have been taught to shoot in camera, I have also learnt the hard way on return to studio that the art director wants the shots now. Your professional credibility is on the line when your images are downloaded from your card onto the AD computer. There is always a crowd that gathers round and your heart is in your throat as your images come on screen. You get it right in camera.
In Daves defence his use of the tool is not for immediate release and PS/LR is complimentary to that. I use PS/LR for my own personal images that is where it stays.
As a stock rather than commercial photographer I usually have time to get it right – in camera. Which contributes to my mind being free to consider several approaches to a shot and to understand in my own mind what the previsualization should (could?) be.
Also, I’m becoming bored with the wonderfully dramatic high range, highly saturated “nature photography” so prevalent today. The world isn’t like that, and viewers know it. My friends, who only buy the books and magazines that print my images, are becoming bored as well.
Scott- I’ve never really understood this debate- I think the “purists” argue that everythign should be done right in camera as if “technology” is evil and isn’t really “part of the creative process”. I think David dispels that in one sentence… After all its the FINAL IMAGE that counts, whether its for sale, for private use, a bride, or stock photography. I think things like composition and lighting and mood within a frame are a must for creating a great image, but beyond that, the finishing is in the mind of the creator, and to David’s point- nine minutes gained in Lightroom for every image sure adds up to a lot more time with your kids, shooting, playing golf… you get my point. Happy New Year!
I remember all the raging debates on film vs. digital when the digital technologies starting coming out… so I found it a bit funny when you said the part about the purists thinking technology is evil! But I wonder how many of the purists have flat panel LCD TV’s, cable modems, websites and email to promote themselves, etc.
Some photographers are better at photography, some (like me) are better at post. We all wind up at the same end.
Couldn’t help but weigh in here, because I think the vast majority of this debate depends on what kind of image you are shooting.
If I am a news photographer shooting a war zone for a newspaper or a magazine, then I think getting it right in the camera is essential. What the camera outputs should be what your eyes saw. The more you fiddle with it in Photoshop, the more distrust starts to get built into the image. Was this really what was there you pressed the shutter button? I worked in newspapers for almost 15 years (mostly when Photoshop was just getting started) and when I was editing pages, if a photographer had told me they spent hours on an image in Photoshop, I would begin to wonder what they had done to it. And this was before a lot of the miracles that Photoshop will do now. We’ve seen that several times recently where a photographer photoshopped an image to show what they wanted it to, rather than what really was there. I think in this case this line has to be very, very fine and well-defined.
However, if you are shooting weddings or portraits (which is the bulk of what I do now), then I say get it right to the extent that you can in the camera and then fix it to please your client in Photoshop. For example, I did an outdoor fall portrait shoot with two families a couple of months ago. I had one day to do it, and that day happened to be overcast. I don’t have a ton of equipment, so I just didn’t have a lot of options to get fabulous lighting. Eyes were going to be gray, skin tones muted, etc. But I brought the images into Photoshop and created what my clients were paying me for — great images of their families with bright eyes, white teeth, etc. I even tucked a few tummies, adjusted some ears and fixed a lip. My clients were thrilled. Were the final images what my camera saw? No. But were they what my clients wanted? Yes.
In the end, I think that’s all I need to care about.
“To a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.” – Mark Twain
I believe you use whatever tool is appropriate to getting the job done, not just a hammer (i.e. camera) all the time. However, for me the opposite of what David Zisler says is usually true. I find it usually easier to fix problems on location than later in Photoshop. Sure, if I’m just tweaking the level of a shadow or something simple, Zisler’s advice would hold true, but for most part I find that if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.
Too often beginning or intermeate photographers think the answer is in PS or LR. I learned when I was at that stage to get it right in the camera first and foremost. And I’m glad I learned that lesson well enough to trust my instincts when they tell me to do the best I can with the camera and then fix up the rest with software. After all, that’s what its for. I shoot mostly spontaneous stuff now, and very often if I’m too picky with getting it right in the camera, the shot is long gone. My hat is off to all the photographers who do wedding/bar mitzva/studio/portrait work. I no longer have the patience to deal with clients who want me to be a plastic surgeon.
Scott- like some of the other posters, I have to agree that being good a what you do means using the right tool for the job at the right time. If you can save yourself 1 hour of time and hundreds (if not thousands) in expensive lighting equipment with a 1 minute adjustment of some sliders in Lightroom and synching your changes to the other photos in the series, that’s they way to go.
Conversely, if you are trying to get a lighting effect like Joe McNally does in his shots, you are looking at hours and hours of time in Photoshop to most likely come up with a poor substitute that probably looks “edited.” Here, you are better off getting the shot “right” in camera and investing in the time and equipment to make that shot right.
That being said, shooting with the idea that you can “fix it all later in Photoshop” is an excuse for poor photographic technique. As a photographer, pro or amateur, we owe it to ourselves to learn the fundamentals of good photography and proper techniques so that we can make the best choice about which tool to use when. If we start with the best possible capture, we’ll have both less work to do in Photoshop and a better product to start with for the times when we do need to polish it for the client (even if the client is yourself).
I think that the key lies in finding the middle ground. Sometimes I go to such lengths to get it right in the camera that I missed the whole point of the shot or forgot about another aspect of the shot that I wanted to get. I think that each photographer has to make the decision on what is “within reason” so that they can find their own middle ground. That spot may be different for each of us but I think we could all learn a lot about our own talents and skill in exploring this.
Jeremy said:
“That being said, shooting with the idea that you can “fix it all later in Photoshop” is an excuse for poor photographic technique. As a photographer, pro or amateur, we owe it to ourselves to learn the fundamentals of good photography and proper techniques so that we can make the best choice about which tool to use when. If we start with the best possible capture, we’ll have both less work to do in Photoshop and a better product to start with for the times when we do need to polish it for the client (even if the client is yourself).”
Very well put. I agree wholeheartedly.
I do photograph for my own creative pleasure, and I don’t have huge numbers of keepers. Since I shoot in RAW, everything is going to be post-processed to some degree. That being the case, I try to do a good job in camera, but without obsessing. When I go into post-processing, I do whatever I feel needs doing; it normally is a fairly fast process, unless I just want to play around. I have great respect for professional photographers; however, I am grateful that I don’t have their constrictions and demands.
I’d say a real “purist” would be one who stops listening to bickering on each side and actually goes out to take photos…with Photoshop or not.
GET OUT OF THE HOUSE
I second the motion! It’s saturday morning, the sun is shining — there is a bright crisp light outside. Why am I inside starting at my computer?
What was the temperature outside?
Some people in the northern regions are probably not wanting to go out if they can even open their door from all the snow!
Our favorite wildlife and landscape photographer, Moose Peterson, tried to teach us that what we are creating is our vision of the reality in front of our eyes in a way that can be seen by a viewer who was not there with us.
As good as our skills and equipment might be at that moment, they may not be sufficient to completely express that vision, due to the limitations of digital sensors, etc.
His wisdom was to realize this when conceiving the photo and if the photographer realizes that the color will need to be puched up from the raw capture when the photo is being created, then the photographer is merely using ALL of the available tools to create art.
Compose and expose in the camera; process, interpret, color correct, retouch, sharpen, print in the darkroom…oops, showing my age…er, lightroom. Same as it ever was…
A lot of this “debate” usually ends with the argument “No, everyone should do it the way *I* do it.” It’s all rather silly. It reminds me of the debate that raged when desktop publishing came along and “ruined” the purity of traditional layout and design.
The rule? Do what works for you. Learn the skills you need to have.
Happy New Year!
So what have we learned here? Too much of a good thing is not necessarily a good thing. After a certain point you get diminishing returns from the effort you put in. Whether you’re trying to “get it right” in the camera or get in Photoshop what you couldn’t get in the camera. Personally, I’d like to get as much of it right in the camera as possible. Then PS has enough data to make the final tweaking easy and quick.
I not only agree with David I think other Pro’s should start thinking that way so they can keep up with the times. Times change & if the other guy is making his wedding pics as good as your but all you can say to your client is that i’m a better photographer than him or her & thats why you should pay me more. Sorry i just don’t see you surviving in this economy.
Wedding Photography is not Photojournalism… People are paying you to make them look good & not take up all of their time on their wedding day & making this exception here & there to keep the day moving makes sense.
I think the heart of this debate is not photography vs Photoshop, but the idea that technology has made creating quality images accessible to anyone. Rather than welcoming the beginner, we make assumptions about their intent, joke about their lack of technique, and laziness when it comes to setting their camera on “P for professional.” It’s easy to forget that we’re all here because we enjoy creating images.
We stand tallest on our soapbox when the newbies impact our bottom line, but such is life. As a working professional there will always be competition, and innovation will always revolutionize the industry. IBM trumped by Microsoft trumped by Apple trumped by the next big thing.
I believe that beginners aspiring to be professionals do themselves a disservice by not learning everything they can about the craft. Digital photographers will use computer tools whether it’s Photoshop, Apeture, iPhoto, Lightroom, Photo Mechanic, Bridge or others. As professionals, we should always be striving to be better ourselves. Complacency only makes it easier for the other guy. I would say David Ziser attributes a lot of his success to continual learning. Recognizing & appreciating the “look” of other photographers, e.g, David Hill, Robert Alvarado, is something that should inspire us to the possibilities that modern day tools allow.
In the end, the proof is in the image. Does it inspire you? Does it inspire your clients?
I encourage you to find your passion, and leave frustrating debates to other folks.
Hey Scott do you think that a Photoshop Module in Lightroom will happen?
Any insite or am i just dreaming?
I really think this depends on what your shooting, I personally always fiddle around correcting and adjusting settings partly because its fun but more that I want it to be as perfect as it can get.
In my gig photography I always bump the exposures by maybe 2/3 of a stop this is something you can’t do on the camera as the shutter speeds would be getting even slower, not to mention all the noise.
http://www.edstonephotography.com
Scott:
This is off topic, but I was wondering if anyone has talked at all about effects created by using the Clarity slider in the -100 to 0 area? I put together a short demonstration of doing this over on my blog (http://photographybydlr.blogspot.com) because I hadn’t seen it on your site or on Matt’s site, the two places I would have expected it to be described. Anyway, just curious if anyone else is using it for a faux infrared effect. Thanks, David
Scott,
I would respectfully but strongly disagree with your latest posting, and this is coming from one who really enjoys your blog.
I think David’s comment about shooting it now and fixing it later in Photoshop is going to come back one day and haunt him. What he is in essence saying is that eventually, any 12-year-old kid with a camera and a great understanding of computers and Photoshop will be able to do the same work as David’s. This may lead to his one day losing a lot of work to just such a kid.
You can already see what I’m talking about if you look at Nikon’s ad about a kid shooting part of a wedding and doing nice work.
The only reason a client hires commercial and wedding photographers is for our ability to produce exceptional images given the parameters and challenges of the assignment.
Understanding how light and composition come together to produce gorgeous images separates us from the 12-year-old kid with Photoshop.
And what really separates a good photographer from what I call a “Photoshopper” is the ability to previsualize an image, knowing in that previsualization what the outcome will be. This includes using such time-honored basics as a strong composition, a good range of values, and a sense of the use of color (when appropriate), along with knowing how the magic of light brings it all together.
Lightroom and Photoshop are absolutely spectacular tools, but a number of us believe that is what they are, tools, not crutches for saving what was not previsualized or done in the creating of the image.
I do agree with you that those of us who have been shooting for a long time used to use a traditional darkroom to enhance our images and make spectacular prints. That said, we started with the best quality image we could do in camera. Why should that change today with the digital darkroom. The principles are the same.
There is another aspect to the shoot-it-now/Photoshop-it-later philosophy, and that is that it encourages lazy photographers. We often point out to our students that by not exercising discipline in their photography, they cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as the old saying goes.
Just because one has pointed a camera at something, and somewhere in all those expensive little pixels there may be something of interest that can be salvaged in Photoshop and a plug-in or two to produce “art,” this does not make for a creative photographer or artist.
Aesthetics change in photography, but discipline does not. Many of us cringe at the expression, “I’ll just fix it later.” Again, Lightroom and Photoshop are incredible tools, but please, let us remember they are tools and no substitute for the initial crafting of an image.
Keep up with your interesting and thought-provoking posts,
Hi Scott and everybody else!
Scott, thank you for a very inspiring and interesting blog, it is always nice when the RSS feed shows that there are new posts to be read at your blog.
I think mr Ziser is right, when it comes to fixing it afterwards. The problem then is to know when you can fix it and when you can’t. It is not the best thing to think, at the location, that this is fixable, go on, and the get back to the computer to see that it is not fixable…
Keep up the interesting topics!
/ Fredrik Setterberg
As always, you’ve provided an interesting read Scott.
What I think David has missed is the fact that how much better could his pictures get by taking a little more time with the source shot & still tinkering with it in PS or LR. It really won’t matter how good Adobe make these programs if your source shot hasn’t had the time & effort put into making it as good as it can be straight out of the box.
Keep up the good work!
Hi I an a big fan I sent you a link to my blog to your flickr.
this is it. http://tubeexpikesportphoto.blogspot.com/
Hello Scott et al.,
Finally a bit of sanity… of course it is OK to use Photoshop to save you time, this makes all the sense in the world. Why wouldn’t you? This “Get it Right In Camera” fanaticism proves that once again, absolutes are absolutely bad for you. I think David has rightly proven that whether or not you should hold to “Get it Right In Camera” depends on the situation. And frankly, the camera is no more important a tool than is your favorite image editor. What is more important is your vision as an artist/photographer. Your camera & image editor (Photoshop and/or Lightroom) are again, just your tools to realize that vision. To elevate one tool over the other is like saying to the carpenter that his saw is more important than his hammer… which is well, just nuts. Master ALL your tools (anyone here think that David Ziser can’t “get it right in camera”?) and you will be able to respond to nearly any situation thrown at you.
And to those purists who refuse to use whole elements of Photoshop/Lightroom because it violates some notion of personal propriety I would suggest they are doing themselves a disservice. Is there anyone who thinks that any photographer worth his or her salt hasn’t always used ALL the tools available to them at any moment in time? How is it anymore ‘pure’ to dodge in a darkroom than it is to dodge in Photoshop? Sure, learn to ‘Get it Right In Camera’, but don’t forget to ‘Get it Right in Photoshop/Lightroom’ as well.
–Rich
Very interesting point. I believe one should try and get the shot as good as possible while shooting, but to start experimenting with white balance, saturation or that last third stop up or down is a waste of time while shooting. Especially for photos that basically works as shot but just need a little adjustment to get it right according to your vision. You will also be sure to miss a lot of the ‘golden’ shots while you fiddle with camera adjustments. I have long since changed from in-camera to software adjustments. And mind you, you don’t have to shoot RAW to make the adjustments, works perfect with JPG as well.
It is funny that you say that you go way out of the way to get the shot right straight from the camera. I have gotten into that habit as well. I started with digital cameras… well, I had film cameras in the past but they were the equivalent of a cheap point-n-shoot camera. But when I really dove into photography it was with a Sony Cybershot back in 2000 and then went up to the Canon Digital Rebel, then the Canon 20D, and now the Canon 5D. (Yes, I am a Canon fan and keep trying to convert V every day but he won’t budge
). Anyway, I had the opinion of “shoot 1000 and at least 10 will be great!”. After digging into your books and taking seminars with Joe McNally I took a 180 and now go to great lengths to get it right in the camera.
So I am with you on having to find the best spot in the middle to put forth the effort to get the shot really good out of the camera within reason and rely on Photoshop to put the final touches on it.
Wir freuen uns darauf, Ihnen lokalisierte Versionen bekannter Programme anbieten zu konnen:
Englisch, Deutsch, Franzoesisch, Italienisch, Spanisch und viele andere Sprachen!
Sofort nach dem Kauf konnen Sie die gewunschten Programme herunterladen und installieren.
Unser Preis.
Windows XP Pro With SP3 – $59.95
Adobe Acrobat Pro 9 – $69.95
Office 2007 Pro – $59.95
Adobe Photoshop CS3 – $79.95
AutoCAD 2009 – $149.95
Wir haben auch noch andere Programm fur Macintosh
Microsoft Office 2004 for MAC – $79.95
Adobe Acrobat 7 Professional for MAC – $59.95
Adobe Creative Suite 2 Premium for MAC – $229.95
Macromedia Dreamweaver 8 for MAC – $69.95
Wir haben mehr 300 verschiedener Programmes fur PC und Macintosh!
Kaufen jetzt, warten Sie nicht!
http://vonmertoes.net/img-add/euro2.jpg
preschool educational software, net software purchase
what are the new features in adobe photoshop cs3 adobe software uk
discount adobe software for ms office compatible software filemaker pro 9
nero 8 adobe photoshop cs3 vs windows vista 64 bit
oem software to filemaker pro tab layouts
free autocad photoshop for mac