5 reasons to get it right in-camera and not fix it in post

October 14, 2018 by John Aldred 10 Comments

It’s something we’ve been hearing in the worlds of both photography and video for years. Ever since digital became a thing, so did “Oh, we’ll fix it in post”. But most of the things that we often choose to fix in post can more easily be fixed in-camera on the day. Sure, it might take an extra 5 or 10 minutes of your time, but it could shave hours off your post production.

In this video from the guys at Aputure, we see five reasons why you should definitely fix things in-camera, and not rely on post for.

Vision Perfection – If you see something, say something. We all get things that show up in our shots that we don’t notice until after we’ve shot it. A light stand here, a piece of trash there. Fix it at the time and shoot it again.
Auto White Balance will turn on you – This isn’t so much an issue if you’re shooting raw (whether stills or video), but if you’re shooting jpg or non-raw video footage, you’re going to get much better results if your camera’s white balance is correct and consistent from shot to shot. It’s not so easy to tweak in post if you need your colours perfect.
Motion tracking Issues – Motion tracking is a slow and laborious process. And it might often fail completely if it’s not shot right. If you’re going to be motion tracking your shot, plan it in advance. And going back to #1, don’t rely on motion tracking to remove things from the scene in post that you should’ve removed before you hit record.
Stop cropping and scaling – Cropping and scaling in the edit completely changes the composition. You shot the composition you wanted on the date because that’s the shot you wanted. Let cropping be a creative choice, and not a decision made out of necessity. Mic boom dropped in the shot? Shoot it again.
Clients won’t wait for you to fix your mistakes – Clients know that turnaround times aren’t as long as they used to be. If you shot it right, you can deliver it quickly. But if you’re adding days or weeks onto your post time to cover up your screwups, your clients aren’t going to be happy.

With the exception of the motion tracking one, these apply to both stills and video. The first one is the hardest one I found to deal with shooting stills on location. I’d be too focused on my subject and completely ignore the details in the background ruining the shot. I learned the hard way, with a lot of hours spent in Photoshop that I need to keep tabs on that and fix things while still out on location.

Look for it, fix it, and do it again.

These aren’t the only reasons to fix things in-camera rather than in post. There are plenty more.

What if it’s not fixable in post? If you go back to shoot it again another day, it might be impossible to recreate the location shot you need exactly. I’ve had to re-record entire videos before now because of this.

It also costs you money. You can’t charge your client for the post time to cover up your in-camera screw ups. And you can’t sell that time to another client because you’re busy.

What other reasons do you have for fixing it in-camera and not in post?

About John Aldred

John Aldred is based in Scotland and photographs animals in the studio and people in the wild.

You can find out more about John on his website and follow his adventures on YouTube and Facebook.

« How and where to focus on landscapes to shoot sharper images

This is how photography can make you unhappy »

Mark Niebauer

Its most important to represent the final piece as what was in your mind and that was message to the world. Whether its in camera or not. That argument is pointless and stupid. Just research Ansel Adams.
bergstrom

the problem with raw though and i have lr 5.7, is that when it looks great in the bac of the camera, it looks completely different when you upload the raws into LR., There should be some kind of software thihg where you can program raws to appear as they appeared on the back of the camera, the saturation, blacks, highlights etc, otherwise we ALWAYS have to fix things in post. And yes, i could shoot in jpeg, but for weddings and event work, its better to shoot in raw .
- Kaouthia
  
  “There should be some kind of software thihg where you can program raws to appear as they appeared on the back of the camera”
  
  There is, it’s the manufacturer’s software. Canon’s DPP processes raws the same way their cameras do. Same with Nikon’s software, it also processes raws the same way their cameras do.
  - bergstrom
    
    ah ok thanks;
Erik v

I almost always use cropping. I rather take my time post to get to the perfect composition. I agree with Bergstrom comment, it might look good in the tiny display, but how it looks once uploaded is a different story. Btw if one doesn’t shoot raw then it is almost pointless to do any post.
Ahmet

I think everybody should be sent to a great location with 2 rolls of slide film. That would teach a lot.
And yeah, Ansel Adams… I’m pretty sure he was as fussy on location as in the dark room. I’m pretty sure he would have gone mental is someone told him to fix it in the dark room.
On the other hand I don’t care about Ansel Adams’ workflow. I do photography for my own pleasure just like he did.
Frank Nazario

Give me one…ONE master photographer who would deliver work SOOC…ONE!
One that would get lights and shadows, composition, color, crop, aperture, ISO and shutter speed and DOF from the get go… OH!!! AND I BEG you to share please the gear that can help acomplish such a monumental creation… Get real, all master photographers, all, would cut their hands of before delivering a photo unedited… Only photojournalists do that and it more because of their ethics to provide the storyline as it hapened and document it more than their urge to present a work of art…
Now you can do your best to get as much as you can in camera to do the least in post but please, please, please… Get it in your head… PHOTOGRAPHY WILL ALWAYS BE AT LEAST A 2 STEP PROCESS OF PRODUCTION AND POST … And you can throw in there preproduction if it is a commercial or paid gig.
- Kaouthia
  
  Nobody’s saying don’t process your work. They’re saying don’t compensate for crappy technique by “fixing” in post.
  
  Would you rather spend 3 minutes fixing something on-set or 2 hours fixing it in Photoshop? Your call.
  - Frank Nazario
    
    there is always something to fix.. and it has absolutely nothing to do with technique… it has to do with the limitations at the time of production… lights might be off shadows too dark that need work etc etc etc.
    
    Actually your statement is the other way around … would you rather spend 2 hours in a photo location with a client trying to find a way to bring up the shadow or contrast or decide whether the light is too warm or cold or etc etc… or would you rather slide a digital button and in 40 seconds do the same.
    - Kaouthia
      
      No, my statement is not the other way around. it’s never taken me 2 hours to balance lighting on location, EVER. If you’re having that problem, then you have bigger issues you need to resolve. 🙂
      
      You’re also still completely missing the point, but best of luck to you. You do you.