JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

I'm not sure what to make of what you are asking. You have two choices for out of the camera -- JPEG or RAW. If JPEG, the camera does some processing of the image and gives you what it thinks is best. This can include sharpening, dynamic range adjustment, noise removal and others. And you get the final result. If you do RAW, these adjustments aren't made for you and the image typically is a little flat and needs some help.

Are you proposing that your JPEG is the standard, and that processing the RAW is unnatural?

I hear all this talk about "getting it right in the camera" and not processing. This is really a poor way to look at it. The camera does the best it can, but conditions dictate what the camera is going to actually produce. There is no such thing as "getting it right". You get what you get. You have control over the camera settings (provided you don't put the camera in Auto Mode), and you have control over the aiming of the camera and what the content of the image is. But still, you get what you get. When you look at the image, the shadows may be too dark, the highlights too bright. The camera sees things with an EV range of perhaps 13 or 14 EV if you are shooting in RAW. Even less if shooting in JPEG. Your eye sees around 24 EV in range. Are you saying it is cheating to deal with this in post processing?

If you pick up any magazine and look at any picture. What's the odds that there has been some post processing done to that picture? I suspect close to 100%. Perhaps some crappy shot in some newspaper might qualify as not being processed.

Now if you are saying that photo manipulation is what you are talking about where you remove or add things to a photo, that's a whole different story.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

In the world of Fine Art a camera is reduced to being an artist's tool as in palette knife or paint brush.
I do not suggest that anything is wrong with that.
When I look at archival photos from past times I need to believe that I am being given an incite into how those past times really looked, which is why I look in the first place. I would be disappointed if I was looking at a lie, when what I want to see is real history.
Most "Fine Art" is anything but fine, and it is so easy to say "but it's not a bad photograph - it's fine art!
A photograph is what comes out of a camera. How far should we move away from that and still (honestly) call it a photograph? If called anything else - Fine by me. Del

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use often with my digital files Topaz Adjust 5 but I use it to improve on what I originally saw making sure the effect on the file does not depart from reality. What I am saying is that I use presets but cut down on the effect to make it look natural.
I am in agreement with you, lots of digital manipulation is more digital art than photography.

Glide1340 Loc: Hollywood, Fl

Seems to me, that is precisely TonyP's point.

Oly Guy

How about the creative use of flash? Setting up for a wedding? How is that different than over exposing to achieve the same result? See where it gets confusing. I guess , for me the addition of parts in the final picture is misleading, but all the new computer graphic pictures use trees that are all similar and sell like hotcakes-the public is being drawn into non -representational art just like we are drawn to texting rather than talking. The general public in a concert could care less if the sound is manipulated etc. as long as they enjoy it. Oh yes over saturated sunsets sell! I personally miss the simple old ways, but I think those ways are fast disappearing. Hello smart phone photos etc. Bah humbug?

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

So, the sky wouldn't be there if you happened on that scene at a different time? What is the problem with adding a few clouds which just happened to be missing on the day you visited the site?

What about studio photos in front of an artificial backdrop?

Toby

Or we could call them "Snapshots" and "Art"

neilds37 Loc: Port Angeles, WA

Sky is forever changeable. I took a photo of a scene at first light. The sky was lead gray. Two days later, at the same time of day, there was the most stunning sunrise you have seen. So, my finished photo had the foreground from one day and the sky from two days later. Bad, Bad Me! My second ribbon.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

I think there is a parallel to be made with the art of painting.

Through much of history, artists tried to draw or paint purely realistic renditions of what they saw in the real world, but of course the effort was never perfectly accurate. And part of the reason was what the artist saw was partially a product of what his (or her) mind imagined - perhaps more saturated colors than the real world and perhaps a bit different lighting and maybe with some distracting objects that really were there but removed or ignored from the painting.

I recall once seeing a Rembrandt painting in London that was in remarkably good condition. It looked terribly realistic but thinking back on it the colors were probably more vivid than one would see in the real world; it likely was more what Rembrandt wanted to see than what he really saw.

We all know that what comes out of a camera is rarely - in fact probably never - what we saw when shooting the scene. Post processing may not allow us to move the image closer to what we actually saw but it does give us a way to get it closer to what we wanted to see or perhaps even what we thought we saw. It's like art.

Of course we can also carry it further to get images that are abstract. That's not something I've tried to do very often, but it can be fun and it too is art.

But do we want to remove the art from photography? And would that mean not trying to manipulate the lighting when shooting, not using filters or flash or reflectors?

Shoot Happens

I have always enjoyed this discussion. If you say a photograph must depict reality then you have to question black and white being photography as that is not reality. If you say it is whatever you can do in a darkroom then you need to define at what time because over time, darkroom skills evolved with different chemicals and methods. Ansel Adams photographs were very far from reality with a tremendous amount of manipulation and lack of multiple colour. Today the darkroom has changed to an office with a computer.

Then there is the argument of how much manipulation is OK. Well that is a discussion that has as much possibility for conclusion as a discussion on politics or religion.

I think the answer can be found in the definition of photography as a form of art. My view. I think photography comes in two categories, both being a form of art. One is that a photograph is a record of a moment in time. An event recorded for future memories. That event could be a flower blooming, a bride walking down the aisle, a sunset or a car crash. It is intended to be as true a depiction of what the photographer actually saw through their eyes.

The other category of photography is that it is an idea. As like any form of art, you have a base such as paint and canvas or clay and a wheel. In this case, the camera is where your idea starts to form. The result is what the photographer saw in their mind.

Both are a form of art, both are based on a photograph and both require some form of manipulation because of the inherent limits of the medium. To me, we are all artists first, and we use a camera and photographs as our medium. Is photography just taking the image through a camera or does it include the developing process? I think it is both so doing so through a computer is really no different than through an enlarger and chemicals.

I used to develop my own black and white and colour photographs in a darkroom. I do not miss it at all because the digital side allows me so much more freedom to express my ideas.
But then, that is just my opinion.

Kingmapix Loc: Mesa, Arizona

You presented some good points regarding the digital world.
I believe both aspects of photography are legitimate as long as they are identified as such. I just put together a book of my "art photography" which summarizes my attempts at using PP techniques to create a final intended image. On the other hand, photography for journalistic purposes must be limited to actual "as you see it in the lens" presentations. We can do both - besides its fun to be creative.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

After reading all the commentary, maybe every submission should include 2 images. ONE BEFORE , RIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA HOWEVER IT WAS PRE PROGRAMMED AND ONE AFTER ANY PP MANIPULATION.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

What is the difference in taking paint and brush to a canvas to interpret what one sees and using a camera and PP to do the same?

DJO

I am very glad that Ansel believes that no one has the right to dictate what I perceive, because now I feel free to say publically, perhaps what has never been said publicly without fear of verbal or physical attack. In my opinion, his work is boring crap.

TheDman Loc: USA

Here's my most recent one. Is it 'real'? Not real? Why or why not?

(Download)