Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

Making lighting changes is very difficult and it is easy to
spot fakes.

Indeed. If you're going to replace a burnt out sky for example, it's far
more believable to use a correctly exposed sky from another shot taken at
the same time (and a similar angle) rather than one from a different day.

In my opinion, it is better to spend one's
time taking more pictures than faking the lighting on a bad
shot.

Absolutely. Or better still, spend more time over each photo to make sure
you get it right in the first place.

Sometimes I've been guilty of sloppy shooting, thinking that I could easily
fix it later, but it didn't take me long to realise that spending a few
extra minutes in the field can save a lot of time later. Post processing is
far more time intensive than simply getting it right when you take the shot,
and it's actually much easier, not to mention that you get a better quality
result.

Of course, if time is critical or you're shooting action, you may not have
that luxury, in which case post processing can be a life saver. In such
cases I generally cover my options by blasting off a number of different
exposures to be on the safe side, figuring that I can sort out the mess
later. At least digital shots cost nothing.

But if time's not an issue, I think it's better to take fewer shots and
spend more time over each one. Quality rather than quantity. But it doesn't
hurt to take a few extra extra exposures if there's any doubt.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk