moletrapper Loc: Estacada, Oregon

I have been taking pictures for about 70 years and my favorite photographs of all time are Ansel Adams black and white photos of his era in time. Maybe because i started with a box camera, then a reflex, speed graphic, 35mm with long lens, and now with a digital. I think i am biased because i believe it takes more patience and skill to produce an exceptional photograph using black and white than color. Maybe i should amend that and say with the manipulation of photo's in post processing it is getting harder and harder to tell if that is the real picture or is it photoshopped. I want my picture to show what i see and only my skill with the camera will produce that. I have an old photoshop program that i no longer use and i have no argument with those who prefer to make changes or enhance their photos. It's just my personal choice. My thrill comes when a viewer of one of my photographs says "I know that place, it looks just like that." I only allow myself the luxury of cropping and light adjustment and my pictures are for my personal enjoyment, either B&W or color. I sell no pictures and only give them to my friends. Thank you for letting me put my statement here and keep snapping.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I have found that my digital cameras do not reproduce what I see (or remember seeing) unless I do some post processing. Recently I photographed a couple of boxes I was mailing to check our DNA ancestry. The boxes had a multicolored border with many shades and colors on it. When I looked at the boxes on my desk and the picture on my screen, they were considerably different in color, detail and saturation. I processed the pic in Photoshop until it looked like what I saw with my eyes. The camera does not capture exactly what the eyes see, but unless you can view the picture and the actual object or scene side by side, you will never notice that, and others won't notice it either. In terms of black and white, it doesn't look like the color object at all, so you are creating a B&W facimile of reality.
Attached is the left edge of the original pic and the left edge of the processed image side by side. I had the box standing right in front of my monitor while I did the post processing and did my best to make the processed pic look like the box I was looking at.

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I shot slide film instead of b&w, but the discipline I developed over the years has led me to feelings similar to yours . . . but you will find that most here will not agree

moletrapper Loc: Estacada, Oregon

I don't disagree with anyone's way of doing things. I just said what i feel and what i strive for. After all only the photographer is really the only one who can criticize the finished product and he can throw it away or delete it if he wishes. Have fun and enjoy what you are doing.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

As an Ansel Adams fan you must realize that he enhanced his photos greatly in the darkroom. Between his darkroom manipulation and using sky filters to artificially darken skies, his photos don't look like the actual scene. I heard of someone once who knew Yosemite from his photos, and was disappointed when he actually visited there that it didn't look as spectacular as it did in his photos.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

But that is art - artists are after effect rather than trying to preserve memory.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

I cannot totally agree with the statement that his photos don’t look like the actual scene. An example would be Mirror Lake. On my last trip there, I tried to locate the exact place and perspective by taking a postcard along. It was an interesting exercise.... What was most remarkable was the changes in the scene over time: more brush, trees much different in size, some had fallen etc. His original doesn’t looke as “manipulated” as some of his other prints.

I do, however, understand the point you were making.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

But some of us will!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

roger

A few things. If I was shown the two pics, I'd have chosen the left as the better of the two, because of the white areas. it's more "white" than the right hand sample. My feeling is, if you can get the whites to match, the rest of the colors will come very close to the original. That said, all different media, whether black-and-white negative or positive, color negative or positive film, and digital all have some bias or characteristic in their rendering of an exposure. I agree with you that it's difficult to get an exposure to match the original. You might use an 18% gray card to set and get the color balance as close as possible, especially if shooting RAW. That should make the colors match as closely as possible. If there's a big difference you might check the color rendering of your monitor.

Jim Bob

I am grateful for my experience with film cameras and the dark room. Although film is in many ways more "forgiving" than digital, using those earlier manual focus cameras and having to wait for film development before viewing an image created a skill set that exclusive digital shooters can only imagine. Shooting once in a lifetime events in those days required you to know what you were doing because you didn't have the ability to chimp and re-shoot for correction. Wonderful experiences that I will always cherish. But I must confess, I love the convenience of digital even with all of its drawbacks.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I find it all to be very challenging. Being able to capture the essence of a scene with minimal processing is very satisfying, but I also respect those who take the time to learn advanced PP and use it effectively to present their subjects in ways that may not be natural per se, but manage to bring out the beauty in what catches their attention. Even electron microscopy or multi-spectrum astrophotography can be very stunning and beautiful despite the advanced technology that these require, making digital PP seem simple by comparison. For me, it is more about presenting the subject than how its done. My approach is more like moletrapper's, though, with minimal post work and mostly with JPEG. Except for me it's not due to any philosphical reason or artistic preference. I just haven't spent the time or money on a serious processing application, proper monitor, etc.

Jim Bob

Well if you take the time and expend the effort to get it right in the camera (an approach I subscribe to) you will not need to engage in serious post processing unless you wish to make significant modifications. Unlike many on this site, I really don't enjoy post processing.

Haymaker

BebuLamar

Unless you shoot slides or Polaroid how can you do no post processing?