gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
There are a bunch of reasons, and I'll no doubt repeat a few things already said.
1. There is a myth among some photo enthusiasts, encouraged by some photographers, that good photographers always make perfectly calculated, perfectly exposed, ideal images that are perfect in the camera. The truth is far from that and it is far more complex. In fact, quite often we are making what amount to educated guesses and/or going with hunches, and sometimes we simply have to respond too quickly to get a shot that would be gone if we took the time to carefully calculate. So in these cases we often find ourselves using the post-processing phase to improve or make the best of the technical quality of photographs that are aesthetically good.
2. In many cases, even with ideal exposures, we know that elements of the scene will require work in post. This is nothing new—it was the case with film photographers who regularly burned and dodged in order to create effective photographs. Again, the idea that we simply "capture" what is there in the camera and "it is good," doesn't work, and for a whole range of reasons. So we need to darken elements in order to bring attention to others, unblock shadows, tone down highlights, even out tonalities, and all the rest.
3. In classic photography and still today in digital photography, the "right" exposure is often the one that the photographer knows will hold the most scene data for final work in post. In other words, the conception of the photograph from the very beginning relies on the potential of the darkroom (optical or digital) to realize the potential of the image.
Dan
|