JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

There is, amongst subscribers of this forum, an apparently endless debate as to what true photography really is. Some belong to GIRITC crowd - i.e., "Get it right in the camera." These folk decry any form of post-processing, saying that an image altered in any way after the fact is not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. True enough, although some GIRITC shooters will engage in PRE-processing, as in, changing the camera's settings (other than exposure, shutter speed, iso and flash) BEFORE capturing the shot. Which is, again, not a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture. Others insist on shooting only jpegs, saying THAT format yields a true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture, because no settings are changed by the shooter prior to capture, AH, but the CAMERA, in capturing a jpeg image, is using its built-in software to decide how the image should appear. So the camera alters the images w/o input from the shooter, SO, one more time, this is not an altogether true representation of the photographed scene at the instant of capture.

Of course, this argument may be worth pursuing if one is intent on rendering an image as close as possible to the scene being photographed as it existed at the moment of capture. Such shooters are sometimes referred to as "purists" and in other situations as "photo-journalists." Now if that's the way one wishes to approach the craft of photography, well, that's fine. BUT, one person's snapshot is another person's news image is another person's Facebook/Twitter/Instagram shot.

But what if the shooter decides this isn't the way to go? What if the shooter wants to create an image that's not just what the camera sees, but what the shooter sees. Ah. The IPTMFAICI crowd. (I'll process the, um, image after I capture it.) This is when one moves into the area of, um, ART. Which, as an independent photographer, I have every right to do. You don't care for the approach? Fine. You go your way, and I'll go my way ... and I'll get to Loch Lorman aforrrree yeeee... (Sorry. Couldn't resist.). Ah, but I've run across an article which explains this concept quite clearly. And here 'tis, laddie.

http://photographylife.com/what-is-fine-art-photography#more-138580

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Photography is a medium in which light is recorded upon a light sensitive material usually after passing through a lens. No amount of processing can strip a photograph of its quality of being a photograph provided it is not being copied into another medium. Even bringing in elements from other media would be considered photo collage or mixed media but it still a photographic derivative

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

It was so much easier back in my day.
There were only a half dozen "true photographers" of note and we could name them all.
Now a days it would take a new york telephone directory just to list the commercial "touch up"
labs much less the millions of people who choose to "roll their own".

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

That is SOOO true!
Back in MY day, if I didn't get stepped on by a dinosaur that day...., IT WAS A GOOD DAY!!!
NOW, I even have to look both ways before crossing a street...., and that's WITHOUT a camera!!!
SS

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

You have no clue of what you're talking about.
I believe in getting it right in the camera, but I do not "decry" PP. What I do object to is the " I'll just fix it in post" mentality. I don't oppose composite photography either. What I object to is when parts of photos taken by other people are used to make a composite. Use a sky/foreground/background etc. that you took, not that someone else took.
You say "You go your way and I'll go mine", but if that's the case why the rant?
You say there is "an apparently endless debate as to what photography really is". Where is that debate? I haven't seen a debate (let alone an endless debate) here at UHH about what photography really is.
You haven't even posted any photographs.

GrandpaJack Loc: Eastern Iowa

I did it my way. (Thanks Frank!)

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Nonsense, unless your day was circa 1839. Look at the history!!

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Photography is "writing with light" whether it's a shot you intend to hang in a museum or shots of a family get together, wedding photographer, photo journalists ect. A photographer will approach each one a little differently. If he/she is trying to please a client, the photographer is going to put in or delete whatever the client wants. If your a professional landscape photographer, chances are your not going to change anything. It all comes down to; If your shooting casually or professionally.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Did someone piss in your cereal? Trolling me? I just outlined a common thread here - and provided an article to illustrate the point. As to the debate, if you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking. Posted no photos? Um, no. I posted an article. It even has pictures if you can't understated the written part. Oh, and I was NOT ranting, just passing along some info I ran across.

Your attitude makes it quite clear that you don't care for those who don't agree with you or your approach.

As I said, you choose what you wanna do, and I'll choose what I want. Don't like that? Tough. I couldn't care less.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Have you not heard of appropriation art? Several artists over the past half century have borrowed and re-contextualized images.

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/pop-art/appropriationä

One of the most famous cases was Sherrie Levine after Walker Evans in which the Sherrie Levine re-photographed an Evans image and then claimed it as their own. While it brought issues of copyright to the public, I would argue that the work is derivative and therefore violates copyright. law.

http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267214

http://www.olinda.com/VC/lectures/Levine_page_1.htm

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

First of all ART is impossible to define. Soup cans are not art but warhol's painting of them is. That said all photographs that have ever been made have been manipulated in one way or another, so the SOOC thing is moot, as there is no such thing. There never has been. By definition the photographer manipulates the scene in some way so as to record it. The result is merely a representation of that scene. The qulity of the representation is for others to decide. The photographer (recorder) may think it is a terrific image but critics may think it's a POC (piece of crap). In fact they may both be right or wrong as tastes change. What does all that mean? BTHOOM (beats the hell out of me)

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

There have been previous threads about this subject on this forum. Also, this has been a long standing discussion ever since the beginning of photography. On of the best examples is Ansel Adams disdain for William Mortensen, so much so the Adams friend and photo historian Beaumont Newhall essentially wrote Mortensen out of photographic history. Adams did not like Mortensen's soft and composited images because they did not fit that Modernist trend of sharp focus and absolute realism that Adams, Steiglitz and f/64 promoted.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/photographer-who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Yeah. I'm aware of this practice. I detest it. But this is not even close to what I was talking about. Some here decry post processing. You said you dislike the "I'll fix it in post" mentality. So do I. you have to capture a decent image in order to have something with which to work. As an old friend once said, "you can't polish a turd."

The purpose of my initial post - and the article to which it linked - was to explain a legitimate reasoning for post-processing. To wit: to create an artistic statement. To do this, I begin with MY OWN IMAGES. I am NOT into collages. I do NOT appropriate other people's images, unless I'm putting together a graphics design project, in which case I MIGHT use stock images - with clear credit to the shooter.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

Photography is writing with light. There are lots of ways of producing a photo. Whatever way you use , it is the way you want to do it. You can be a purist using different methods. Is one better than the other? I think not. Do what you like. Happy shooting.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

It was not in response to your post nor was I the one who the one who said "I dislike the "I'll fix it in post" mentality."

I am interested in the overall discussion of photography and what it is, not just the contents of the article posted.