EL - there are too many Luddites on this forum to make a discussion of anything other than composition and exposure choices. They are far too dismissive of what encompasses good photography and how the techniques involved in post processing are just as important as everything else - and more. Even though Ansel Adams articulated a Zone System, which when coupled to proper negative development would yield a "good" negative to work with - the process of tailoring the developer to the contrast range contained in his negatives is very much the first step of post processing, and the exposure settings that would let the highlights be overexposed on a contact print but would still allow detail to be recorded in the darker areas is far from being a "mistake to be fixed in post" - it was a deliberate choice made to maximize the potential dynamic range in a negative.

To take things further, dodging and burning was the hallmark of a good photographer who was able to execute the process from previsualization to print - and one way to distinguish good technique from bad. Of course, the "get it right in the camera" crowd probably view dodging and burning as heresy. But, as one of my favorite digital landscape photographers, John Tunney from Cape Cod, explains, "Too many people, some of them photographers, don’t realize the importance of editing in the creation of a photograph. In many cases, it’s a 50-50 deal — half capture and half processing.".So it would make sense to characterize many un-manipulated images as not reaching their fullest creative potential, or simply unfinished. As an example, he shows Moonrise over Hernandez, one of A.A.'s signature images, before and after post processing. Clearly the first image was not a "mistake" and the manipulated one was not "fake" - the manipulated image created the drama that A.A. wanted us to witness, in a way that the camera simply could not capture.

https://jtunney.com/the-art-of-dodge-burn/

I think the OP had a good idea to start this thread. I also think that "camera technique" cannot be separated from post processing technique, if there is to be a thorough discussion of the topic. It is just as valid, if not more so, today as it was back in the day.

If "art" is your goal, then there are techniques to optimize your expression. If the science and accurate reproduction of an object or scene is your goal, there are techniques to optimize that. Neither is "right or wrong;" it depends on your goal. Unfortunately, there is no way to tag a picture as art or accurate reproduction, expect by noting the type of processing, if any, that was done. Many people do not indicate that post processing was done, though on many photos it is quite obvious, so you don't really know if the person is a good artist or good photographer, or both, or neither. It would be interesting to have a photo contest where no post, or in-camera, processing is permitted to see what people really can do with a camera. Just a thought.

You wouldn't have much of a photo without some processing, each pixel records light round a particular frequency commonly known as red green or blue. So at the very least each pixel requires interpolation of the data from its neighbouring pixels as each pixel is missing around 2 thirds of the color data. There will be adjustments applied at least some contrast and some stylistic choice. So you are asking the impossible really there is always postprocessing Automatic or automatic with some manual input.

Sorry, the computer crashed!



Linda! Good points!

Let me clarify my statements: On my first professional job, as a studio employee, I used to tell my boss that every time I shot a wedding (I was a rookie back then) I have a sleepless night and I sit on pins and needles until the darkroom crew tells me everything is alright. The boss was less than sympathetic, he said "the difference between an amateur and a pro is a pro knows what's gonna be on the film before he/she releases the shutter" I was a 17-year old big tough kid from Brooklyn and I thought I was gonna faint! Waht a daunting responsibility, I thought- so for a lot of years, I didn't get much sleep and I tried very hard to make the grade. Perhaps that took the mystery and anticipation out of the equation. I still try hard and look forward to good results but now I don't have to wait as long! In commercial work, we no longer need to wait very long before scraping a set and going on the next job. In the film days, the thought of a commercial re-shoot, bringing back the models, the makeup folks, or the food stylist, or missing a deadline because of a mistake was the ultimate nightmare.

Even with the "instant gratification" of digital, I still gotta get it right, oftentimes the first time, because some events or expression can not be repeated. If I MISS and get nothing, I would have had an unhappy boss and nowadays, an unhappy client.

PS to that- There was a mean old guy in the darkroom that knew about my worrying, so he took pleasure in telling me that all my negatives were 6 stop overexposed and the looked more like line copy! Then I would run down to the darkroom, nearly falling down the stairs, to see the damage and then he would say- "just kidding"!

As for post-processing: My issue is not with post-processing, I did that before digital photography was invented, it used to be called custom printing and darkroom work. My argument is with folks who treat it as if it was some alien practice from a distant planet that has nothing to do with "real" photography. To me it is part and parcel of the entire process from conception, to shooting, lighting, posing, composition, getting expressions, capturing the mood and the action and then putting in the finishing touches on by means of skilled post-processing or adding special effects or whatever the maker wants to do. Some folks around here talk about it as if it is merely a fix for bad camera work or some kind of stand-alone computer art that covers up or obscures the real image. I don't see it that way. Post-processing is a whole bunch of TECHNIQUES- not more or less important than anything else in the process. Every image made at my shop is post-processed before it goes out to clients. It's mostly small tweaks and routine portrait retouching, For those of us in the commercial end it enables us to offer all kinds of graphics and special effects that were not practical or available to us before digital.

I'm pleased that you provided intelligent feedback and a good conversation. Yout thoughts are always welcome- I wish more folks would converse this way.


Linda

I’m new to all this, but it was my understanding that post processing, at the most basic level, is done to attempt to get the raw photo closer to what the human eye actually saw. That the camera has more limited color range, for example.
The other purposes for pp are to enhance emotional impact and to guide the viewer to a particular point of emphasis in the scene.
Certainly post processing can be ‘carried to the extreme’—but every photographer will have a different definition for that! It all boils down to intention of the photographer.