Things Photo Geeks Need to Stop Bitching About

by Chris Gampat on 05/15/2011

 

There are problems that photo geeks often complain about when looking at reviews of lenses, cameras, etc. You’ll read them over and over again on forums, in review comments, etc. Often, the complaints will become so great that they don’t realize that there is a solution to the problem that they’re complaining about. Here are some of those problems that photo geeks need to stop complaining about.

Editor’s Note: this posting should be called, “Why you need to learn to edit” as well.

Wanting to get it all right in camera

There are many photographers that say that they want to get it all right in camera. Some of them have a very good reason to—for example if you have a pushy client that wants their photos right then and there then you’ll need to get this done. In that case, you’ll need lots of lights, modifiers, a Sekonic light meter, filters, gels, etc.

Granted, lots of photo geeks don’t necessarily have clients. In that case, stop complaining and learn how to edit. Each photo you take should be treated as your own piece of art that you’re constantly working on and fine tuning. And like any good artist, their pieces are always a work in progress.

Many photo geeks try to get it all right in camera but neglect the fact that they need a lot more than what they’re working with. If you don’t have everything, you’ll need to put in simulated effects in post-production: which is just what they did back in the film days.

High ISO Noise

High ISO noise is not only easily correctable in post-production, but the high ISOs on many modern cameras are so good that they’re often seen to be very acceptable in most situations. Once again, if you’re shooting a very highly paid gig then I understand. But most photo geeks, once again, aren’t.

The arguments here for getting faster lenses and getting more light aren’t always valid, but they do hold some truth to them as well.

Purple Fringing

I don’t believe that this is an issue anymore. Nor do I totally understand why. Purple fringing is easily corrected in post-production by lowering the purple color levels or desaturating the purple area with a paint brush tool.

The alternative is to get better lenses.

Vignetting

Kim and Dan's Engagement

This is a problem that is also easily corrected these days by just pushing or pulling a slider bar. Understandably, if you’re shooting video then it makes a lot of sense as to why you’d not want this problem. But for still images, you can either get rid of it or embrace the problem as part of a creative effect.

White balance settings

While getting better white balance can help a lot in post-production, you can often fix this problem with some white balance tweaking and desaturation of different color levels. This is also why you’re given editing software.

So your alternatives are:

- Embrace these flaws

- Get Photoshop, (or photoshop elements)

- Get Lightroom

In today’s digital world, there is so much potential available to us and we just need to embrace it.

Please Support The Phoblographer

We love to bring you guys the latest and greatest news and gear related stuff. However, we can’t keep doing that unless we have your continued support. If you would like to purchase any of the items mentioned, please do so by clicking our links first and then purchasing the items as we then get a small portion of the sale to help run the website.

Also, please follow us on FacebookFlickr and Twitter.

  • http://www.facebook.com/albin.roussel Albin Roussel

     Amen!

  • Henry Beevers

    Completely agree, i see so many lens review not reccomending a lens because it’s got above normal vignetting or CA, both of which are fixed by a slider in lightroom/ aperture which any half decent digital photographer will have access to. The same goes with resolution, many lens review see anything above top image resolution as ‘unuseable’ when really it’s still pretty sharp.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OKUNPSVGYRALLVYV2RM4EMZITU PHEN

    i’m really intrigued by that “high iso noise” photo.  that is the low-light style of photography that i would like to explore.  i’d be super interested to hear the details about how that was taken.

    • http://www.facebook.com/chrisgampat Chris Gampat

      What do you want to know about it?

    • http://www.facebook.com/chrisgampat Chris Gampat

      What do you want to know about it?

  • Pcalkins43

    I agree Chris. Reading some of the forums it really grates on me how “expert” some of these ladies and gentlemen  seem to be and how negative they are about most everything. It gets old to me and I’ve only been reading a few months now. Carry on!

  • Pcalkins43

    I agree Chris. Reading some of the forums it really grates on me how “expert” some of these ladies and gentlemen  seem to be and how negative they are about most everything. It gets old to me and I’ve only been reading a few months now. Carry on!

    • Anonymous

      Thanks, it totally does get annoying after some time.

  • Henry (UGI Photo)

    There is a reason to getting it right in camera. And it has less to do with getting it “perfect” as you state and more to do with achieving the best possible RAW to work with in post. The reason for this is that post production ALWAYS destroys information. The more you do processes the more chance your image will look crappy when printed. Unless that is, you ensured you had a good base photo to work with.

    When you are capturing light with a lens onto a sensor–in other words, taking the photo–information is not being destroyed. Information in that case, is being created. This is the best stage to ensure you have set yourself up properly for post.

    I agree every photo needs post-production in order to make it really shine. I agree without reality modification such as expensive lighting setups, it is nigh on impossible to make a perfect photo in camera.

    • Anonymous

      If you’re not printing though, you really have nothing to worry about. Plus I’ve learned how to embrace flaws to make them work for me. And in fact, many photographers do that today as well. Terry Richardson is a great example.

  • Henry (UGI Photo)

    There is a reason to getting it right in camera. And it has less to do with getting it “perfect” as you state and more to do with achieving the best possible RAW to work with in post. The reason for this is that post production ALWAYS destroys information. The more you do processes the more chance your image will look crappy when printed. Unless that is, you ensured you had a good base photo to work with.

    When you are capturing light with a lens onto a sensor–in other words, taking the photo–information is not being destroyed. Information in that case, is being created. This is the best stage to ensure you have set yourself up properly for post.

    I agree every photo needs post-production in order to make it really shine. I agree without reality modification such as expensive lighting setups, it is nigh on impossible to make a perfect photo in camera.

  • Leifcreed

    Nothing wrong with trying to get a good base image in-camera. But people do whine about the gear and truly the tech in the gear these days is amazing. More time spent on technique; less time spent moaning on forums and pixel peeping noise. One of the winners on the DPeeview Crow challenge was shot an D80 with cheapish sigma lens. Looked great too.

  • Jeryzkyd

    One thing i cant stand is watching a digital photographer take a pic and immediately look at lcd screen to see the pic, to me this shows insecurity.. Shoot film for a while learn the basics and build confidence!

    • David W

      I agree that there is something wrong about the “take it until you happen across a good photo” mindset popular in digital photography today, but at the same time it’s ridiculous to not take advantage of the technology. Artistic merit is in no way dependent of the difficulty of the artistic process. If checking your LCD screen saves you work in post, do it! Knowing your fundamentals is important, but once you have them down there’s no good reason not to take every advantage to make your work better.

      • http://twitter.com/50mm_Streettog DipayanBhattacharjee

        Agreed to what you said David… But being a street photographer, inspite of shooting digital, I hardly look at the screen… The reason being that street moments usually happen for the fraction of a second… So knowing whether I got the shot or not at the first attempt doesn’t make much difference… Coz even if I didn’t, hardly there is an opportunity to shoot the same thing again…

  • Marksaint

    White balance: or just buy a £20 grey card…

  • Jay Stebbins

    Great post! I am disappointed when a search lands on one of the forums.

Previous post:

Next post: