Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

That sounds like a really expensive appetizer in a ridiculously trendy and overrated restaurant!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

OH! OH! Where is it? I want to go!!

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

This thread certainly has resulted in a lot of interesting conversation! A lot of opinions and justifications of them, adding to the flow of talk. In the spirit of things, I guess I will go ahead and chime in...

First of all, I am an older woman who is young at heart! Nothing elderly or gassy here...

With regard to getting it right in the camera, I agree with that as a worthy objective. This is not "old-fashioned", it is timeless! All who desire to create art in any form will endeavor to get it right on the first try. However, as you said yourself, there are conditions you cannot control in the camera, some of them external [as in the environment] and some of them internal [as in the workings of the camera itself]. While it is noble to be a "purist" who would rather discard an image that requires significant post processing, this is not being an artist who will work hard to achieve a finished product that is in keeping with their visionary concept.

The camera "sees" to the limits of its ability. The eyes also see to the limits of their ability. The difference is that the eyes have a direct link with the brain. The brain has what camera and eyes do not: imagination. It is a process that results in each individual having a different response, a different concept of what the camera and the eyes are jointly producing in the final image. And with the brain interpreting what is "seen", it is often impossible for the image straight out of the camera to represent that vision.

Post processing is a tool for changing the image to conform with the photographer's vision of the scene/subject that the camera could not adequately capture! While there are many who will enhance images in an attempt to make them better, without concern for what they actually saw, there are also those who desire to have that image express not only the physical presence of the subject/scene but also the original vision of the photographer. That vision often includes the evoking of a particular response from the viewer. It is not easy to capture this in a straight out of the camera image! In this instance, post processing does change the image, but does NOT change the actual vision of what it was. Instead, post processing is intended to bring the image CLOSER to the original vision.

I fully agree with the comparison of photography with painting! [It could also be compared with sculpture, although painting has a stronger correlation.] There are many examples of great artists whose paintings are composed of quite a few "paint-overs" or additions/subtractions before the final version is finished. In fact, often they would also do sketches and smaller versions of the paintings along the way before creating the final full-sized work. Photographers take multiple shots with different settings, even go back to the same spot at a different time of day, looking for the perfect light. They do "proof copies" so they can view different edits/versions, and then "test prints" to better see if they have it right before making the final print. Also, just as painters have been known to go back to the painting again later on to make some changes, so also do photographers go back and do new edits of an image. It is all in the name of producing an image that will more accurately represent the artist's/photographer's vision.

As for what has been learned in the past, all art forms are known to have different periods, where the techniques are changed or have evolved. People get an idea of how it "should be done" and will not budge. But there are always others who are willing to seek out ways to break those "rules". Sometimes it is a matter of someone's ideas of how to make the art express the artist's vision [such as cubism], sometimes it is the introduction of new materials [such a new different pigment or a new type of film], sometimes it is the development of new tools to use [such as the switch from film to digital cameras]. In the end, the creative spark will drive the urge to innovate, and the creative mind will seek new ways to use old tools and new tools to produce better results!

Photocraig

If you're really an Old School Old Fart, the "norm" means nothing to you. It stands to reason (another old concept) that a perfectly exposed, composed image (or file) will yield the best potential starting point for post processing--wet or dry. Just as there are exceptions for pushing and pulling film, so, too, are there techniques for similar results in Digital. Acronyms and all, exposing to the right/left, etc.

I'm astonished with my limited drawing skills translated to the mouse or tablet, that I can do so much with Light Room and even sometimes (very rarely) Photoshop.

A new day and a great day. But NEVER a day to even notice the "norm." That's Sophomore Year stuff.
C

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Yes, thanks for reminding us of Adams. What he actuallyy did was use the LightRoom of his time.....in comparison..... And in my mind was, is, the greatest of all time.

Richard Ross

Wow! We have a reference to "Fux's Rules of Counterpoint." I thought I could read UHH for 100 years and never see a single mention of Fux (Fooks). I taught music for 15 years and never saw a single reference to Fux's Counterpoint. It was mentioned for about 30 seconds in one graduate class that I took. Way to go, Kymarto. We have a well rounded contributor with perspicacity and acumen. He's probably a better photographer than me also. BTW, I proudly consider myself an old methane producer.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Old "farts" of the world unite! There is nothing wrong with using the skills and habits you developed (no pun intended) in the analog world. Those limitations challenged our ability to get the images our 'vision" saw. Those may have been challenges that we conquered. I for one still treat every image as though I need to get it "right" not because I don't have the luxury of RAW format and "fixing" the image later in PP. I rather enjoy the opportunity to reconsider the image and my"vision" of the scene at the time and recognize that the split second opportunity might not have been adequate to get it "just right". Or, I am allowed to change my mind about what was the vision I was capturing. After decades of shooting Kodachrome and later Ektachrome I rather enjoy the "blank canvas" that the digital world provides. That does not give me the right to "Spray and Pray".

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

I can't tell, from your question and statements, whether you are being critical of others who don't share your perspective on photography, or whether you haven't thought very deeply about photography.

Maybe the the class you took in the good old days only reflected the biases of an instructor who represented the news industry where documentation, not art, was the objective. (Here are your tools, but you must only use them like I do.)

1. Your eyes can see about 25 stops of light. The best full frame camera sees about 14-15 stops of light. So your camera can't, under any circumstances, record what you see. So isn't all photography deficient?

2. Do you think Ansel Adams' cheated because he dodged and burned when processing his images? Do you think the darkroom is more authentic than Lightroom?

3. Are black and white images made from a digital camera file "enhanced (or dehanced)" because they were made from a RAW file that contained color information? Was it frowned upon to use black and white film when color film became available? Is one better than the other?

4. Are you a documentarian or an artist? You choose. I won't criticize your choice if you don't criticize my choice.

Bill_de Loc: US

You can be an old fart, I'm just old school. I try to get it right in the camera, as I always did. But, I still tweak my images in the computer, much like I used to in the darkroom.

---

stepha11 Loc: Trail British Coluimbia

Someone should remind my body that I'm not an old fart! And that's at 86& 1/2

dyximan

I'm OG not an original gangster but an old goat LOL and I'm 60

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Why aren't purists who want to capture exactly what they "see" in their photography shooting in stereo?
Each of our left and right eyes see things a little differently and our brain post processes that into a single image. That's called vision. A single lens camera is Not producing the vision we think we see with our two eyes.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Palo Alto

I.A.Teacher

Not unless you eat a lot of Broccoli LOL

I agree with you about using darkroom skills to enhance your photos however, what works well for black and whites does not always hold true for color photos. Our eyes will see things differently in the red safe light atmosphere of the darkroom.

Stick with what you know and feel comfortable doing and you can't go wrong.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Are the real artists of post proccessing the one's who take a picture of a scene and then paint it on canvas with real ink and brushes?