ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

I agree with your eloquent explanation 100%.

Canisdirus

Yup...Ansel Adams must have been a noob...right?

Heck, forget post processing...what about just film?
Kodak film was made to push reds and yellows...
Fuji film was made to push blues and greens...

Cameras are incapable of reproducing what you see in the viewfinder...without some sort of push/pull...

Toment Loc: FL, IL

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Completely agree.

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

The difference between the two images is really minimal and most wedding/portrait photographers will do the adjustments (I have been one and know many others). Wedding and portrait photography when done for the newly-wed and their family and friends has more to do with advertising than photojournalism. It is "commercial" photography after all and the client must be satisfied otherwise one is likely to find oneself without a job. It is not photojournalism where there should definitely be ethical boundaries regarding processing (although these have also become rather blurred and abused... but usually a backlash happens against the guilty photographer/editor if they had gone too far). There have been famous examples such as the reunion of two pyramids on the cover of the National Geographic, smoke added to the bombing of a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon by the Israeli Air Force, and many, many others).
"Adjustments" in photography are not new as illustrated by past exhibitions (Photoshop Before Photoshop at the New York Metropolitan Museum or more recently "Clouds" at the George Eastman Museum). Since the inception of photography, examples abound. 19th-century photographers (a lot of whom were former painters) added clouds to palliate to high sensitivity of negatives (paper or glass) to blue light: they either combined two negatives (one for the the land one for the sky) or even painted the needed clouds.
Objectively, framing or post-cropping are also ways to manipulate information/reality by excluding the undesirable elements.
My personal conclusion is that one should always state where they stand in regards of framing, cropping after the fact (way after the moment when the photograph was taken), dodging/burning, and clearly express what their goals are. A photograph without any caption, especially a single one is a rather obscure document whose meaning is more likely to depend on the audience's readings than the photographer's intentions.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

So misguided. Whether it’s choices you make in PP or choices made by the engineers that designed the processing module in your camera, influenced by your camera settings, the final image is processed. The closest you can get to “true” SOOC would be to shoot raw and do no post. Even then you would get different results with different cameras.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

10 or 2? It’s just 110 of one, half dozen of the other! 😜🤪

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m a little late to this discussion but I will assert the opinion that things like correcting white balance and adjusting highlights and shadows are completely acceptable in photojournalism. These things don’t materially alter the scene. And if you disagree then you should also not allow things like flash for photojournalism.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

I have to disagree with you on that point. For instance, The photo Moon over Hernandez. I don't believe that the individual who tripped the shutter had a "Lack of Talent" because of the post-processing done in the darkroom.

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

To qualify Dan's response of "misguided" seems to me another "misguidance." 1- it makes the presented info not as helpful as could be (although true but it can be considered as biased as definitely ignoring what the goals of the camera manufacturers are. They sell a lot of equipment to photojournalists and commercial photographers for whom an as-close-as-possible rendition of colors, density and contrast matter). So there is a difference between heavy post-processing and no processing even on a more "philosophical" ground. 2-Now it is also true that many that will not post-process do it by default rather than invest in what can be costly equipment (computer, software,...) and time.
These (Dan's and SuperflyTNT's) are two different attitudes, points of view and if taken knowingly are not misguided. Neither yours (that some could also find "misguided" and pushing things (PP) too far), nor Dan's may look "misguided" to most of us, just the expressions of two points of view reflected in fact in the patronyms each of us chose: Dan and SuperflyTNT ;o) Let us relax and smile!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

It is said that "life is too short" and as we age, it gets even shorter. Factor in climate change, pollution, lousy diets, smoking, too much booze, political upheaval, stress, and all the bad stuff in the news every day- our time is getting even shorter. Add in the rising crime rate and it becomes more likely that someone will shoot us or bludgeon us to death over a parking space.

So, if you are truly into PHOTOGRAPHY, why waste so much precious time philosophizing, etymologizing, superimposing ethics on art that doesn't really exist instead of picking up your bloody camera and gear that y'all argue about and making PHOTOGRAPHS. Your images are a hell of a better way of expressing your vision and views on life or whatever the heck you want to say.

Ansel Adams and Co. and William Mortensen battled it out about realism vs. fantasy ages ago! Old news! Philosophy my foot! It was about a fight over which exclusive galleries would promote their work - MONEY! Otherwise, there is space in the world for all kinds of art!

More BS about weddig photograhy- MAN! Of course, it is not pure photojournalism, It is not like Cousin Orville and his bride Matilda's wedding cover is gonna end up on the front page of the New York Times or in the pages of a major NEWS magazine. A wedding couple and their photographer can opt for a photojournalistic style of coverage, a more formal posed approach, a mixture of both, or anything in between. The only ethics involved is that the photograher provides what was contracted for, works hard to deliver a good product, and treats the client, their guests, and the clergy or house of worship with respect and kindness. And, what's with that out-of-focus weddig shot? When I first saw it, I was gonna make an appointment with my optometrist- I figured it was time for a new prescription!

Burning and dodging are old stuff. It is not fakery- get over it!

Binary notation is mathematics, not the art ot photograhy. 1-10. At college, I did OK in math- trig, calculus, differential equations- not bad. I quit when it came to "base-8" when the prof said it just like "base 10" if you have two fingers missing.

Post-processing ethics? Folks are saying that you have to include notices or disclaimers to the effect that a photograph has been altered in some way in post-processing. That would make sense if such editing is allowed or prohibited in the rules of a competition, etc., or to avoid misrepresenting in teaching. Otherwise- REALLY? It's like asking an abstract painter to include notice to the effect that "this painting is not realistic, it is my vision after ingesting LSD"! How about "This portrait of Mrs. Higginbottom is heavily retouched. I real life she looks like The Wicked Witch of the North, however, due to my exceptional retouching skills, she appears, in this image as a glamour movie star"!

I am not a genius but I take pictures just about every day- it's my day job as well as my hobby. Some of my commercial work is creatively challenging and exciting and some of it is pure drudgery- I take the bad with the good. My personal work is fun. All in all, I love work as a job, an art/craft, and a great way to earn a living. As for ethics- in business, I treat my clients with honesty, hard work, and integrity. In my personal work, well, my philosophy is simple. I shoot what I like, how I like, as per my mood. I photograph things and people as they were, as they are and how I woud like to remember them.

I like to share my work with others and hope they enjoy it. At work, if they don't like it, I don't get paid so I make sure they love it. After all, a guy's gotta eat and feed his family!

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

Leinik Loc: Rochester NY

Yes especially when the guy who trips the shutter is the same as the guy who does the post-processing. Most seasoned photographers (the guy who shot and printed Moonrise over Hernandez being one) will frame and expose their image according to the result/print they intend to create (process called either "visualisation" (A. Adams) or "pre-visualization" (to make the concept clearer as the "pre" indicates the the photographer's intention/vision predates the taking of the photograph). This is also true in photojournalism.
One whose vision is very different from reality or who does not master the process of taking a photograph will heavily rely on post-processing to make the adjustments they deem necessary. But this is just a section of people who make photographs, not everyone does that.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

The goal should be an end result that when posted on the wall or projected or otherwise viewed, the image is one to be admired. Only when the goal is to deceive is the ethics questionable.
We never question the photographer who arises before dawn to make an attractive image - but is that the sight our intended audience can expect to see? It's certainly no less realistic than modifying balance or saturation etc, etc.
Is it more realistic to stand in one spot for however long it takes to get clouds to bring a tree or a mountain into an artistic location, or to remove a shadow from a subject that needs to be emphasized? Once again, I submit that it is not...
Was it unethical to use soft focus to improve the skin tones of a pockmarked face?
Is it unethical to slim a bride a bit in a wedding portrait?
Even presenting a newsworthy photo may required a modicum of processing to clarify the subject, though here the limits are harder to define.
This is a complex subject, and books can and have been written about it! Further, there's room for legitimate disagreement.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

What's the difference if you pre-process or post-process? NOTHING! Do you shoot all your pictures on automatic mode? Do you spend 2 seconds thinking about the photo you are about to take, or 2 months, or something in between?

You can adjust photo outcome by setting up the scene, making camera adjustments before you snap the photo. You can continuie to adjust after with editing software. None of it is "real" and all of it takes skill.

You choose to limit your skill to what happens before you snap the shutter. Most people today are far more broadminded. I know woodworkers that think electricity should never enter the woodshop. Different strokes I reckon...