The Camera Always Lies

In this post I attempt to write about how the camera sees differently than we do
 and sometimes over-dramatizes scenes. But my attempt to explain
it might be difficult for you and perhaps tedious.

I recall once upon a time, taking a landscape photo, looking at the camera screen, and thinking that what I saw on the screen wasn't quite what I was seeing with my eyes. I made adjustments to my settings, but the next result still wasn't quite right on. If memory serves, I made five different takes, and none were exactly what I saw. Not one.

That was a few years ago, but the reality really impressed itself on me once again on Friday. I had dropped Sue off for a coffee with the ladies and decided to spend the next hour or so driving hither and thither to explore for a picture or three. It was spitting a bit when I stopped at a local park, but when I was finished with that venue, I drove out of town along a rural road.

By this time it was pouring, but I hopped out of the car a few times to take some very quick pics of the autumn colour. This (below) was taken on one of those quick stops. I should clarify and write that this is my interpretation of what the camera showed me on the LCD screen. I can't show you exactly because, I shoot in RAW, which means that the image that I get on the computer is much less developed than the temporary image that the camera shows me.

This is close to the camera version, but possibly a little duller and less contrasty

In the title, I wrote that The Camera Always Lies, and this is a good example, for the day was dull, but the image (above) looks bright. I would say that what I actually saw looked more like this next version (below), which I toned down in post to represent the actual scene as closely as possible.

The scene may not have been quite this dull, but I think this is close

The discrepancy between eyes and cameras isn't always this great, but on a dull day the camera will try to average the light. It assumes normal exposure and therefore brightens the scene. On a very bright day, the camera would try to darken the result as best it could.

Even more stunning is that I had already overridden the camera to some degree and asked it to underexpose from what it interpreted. However, I still got the result in the first photo of the post.

Even in RAW form, the processing software has to give me a starting point, and this (below) is the initial image that I got on the computer. It is somewhat brighter than what I actually saw that day but certainly not as developed as the camera's original interpretation. You can see that it is somewhat between the two version that I have posted above: brighter that what I think I saw but very toned down from the camera's version.

I would be tempted to process the photo like this (below) -- brighter than what I saw but not as bright and vivid as what the camera imagined and what I would have gotten on the computer if I didn't shoot in RAW mode but accepted the camera's interpretation without question.

Every photo is a processed and interpreted view of reality, either by the camera or by the photographer in post. Sometimes, the photographer's processing is truer to reality than the SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) version.