Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

"The lunatic, the lover, and the poet
Are of imagination all compact.
One sees more devils than vast hell can hold—
That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic,
Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt.
The poet’s eye, in fine frenzy rolling,
Doth glance from heaven to Earth, from Earth to heaven.
And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.."
(Wm Shakespeare, 'A Midsummer's Night Dream')

Or, to misquote Thomas Aquinas: 'Photograph, and do what you will.'

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

And how about the "old timers", like Ansel and many others of his era, eh ?

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

This IS a forum that is accessible to the public- well photographers of every ilk. There are so called "snap shooters" just regular folks who enjoy making casual images of WHATEVER- their family, the vacation, the kids, the cat and Aunt Tilly! There are casual and serious amateurs, aspiring professional and professionals and some retired professionals. There are folks that have re- entered the craft after a long absence.There are artists, technicians and equipment collectors and as far as I am concerned, it's all good.

Hopefully this form can be a resource for learning and advancing in this craft. If people don't ask question both rudimentary or even more complex, how is anyone going to learn and advance? It's disheartening that so many people make negative and derogatory remarks- the take the time to write that kinda stuff rather that simply explaining things to the folks- simple answers that that would address their concerns. A perfectly fine question that can stimulate sincere points of view seem to easily deteriorate into a battle of semantics at best or a bad old fashioned urinating contest at its worst!

You don't have to possess a degree in pedagogical science to simply explain a method, technique, a simple concept or some nomenclature, photo-slang or terminology to someone who is yet uninitiated in theses things.

Obviously, if you don't believe in the concept of post processing, simply don't do that- it's unnecessary to degrade folks who are into it and there is no use in discouraging new folks who may want to discover the advantages. If you seriously believe aht at question is rhetorical or someone trolling for a fight- simplu ignore it!

If you are a proponent of the method, then encourage and entice folks to take a shot at it. A cheap and simple way to get folks to catch the bug is to simply encourage them to try out a few of the cell phone apps. I have turned many teenegers onto photograhy by encouraging them to shoot with their cell phones and download a few free apps- Snapseed, Prisma, and there are Lightroom and Photoshop have free "lite" versions. With theses apps they can do many of the basic adjustments, employ filters, create a few special effects, add textures and more. Theses are good starting points and require a minimal investment.

Many great accomplished photographers started out many decades ago with simple point and shoot "box" cameras, commandeering a closet, the family kitchen or bathroom once a week to create a makeshift darkroom. Many started out a "snapshooters" and ended up shooting for major magazines, fashion houses and or opened up major studios. Not everyone is gonna start off with many thousands of dollars in gear and an advanced editing suite. If you care for your craft, teach it to others- it's very rewarding!

srt101fan

I think you've got it right, Horseart. So the real question is how much PP is too much. I have a low tolerance for hyped up dark blue/violet skies and over-done sunsets. I don't even like most of the photos shown on the Windows 10 opening screen - waaaay overcooked! But, a lot of people seem to like them. As the French say, "chacun a son gout."

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Ansel was a proponent of post processing. He often labored long hours in the dark room on a single image. If her were alive and shooting today I'm certain he would advocate for PP.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

The voice of reason.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Of course there is such a thing as a snapshot. But you just call them pictures. Most photos are snapshots or as you call it, just pics. The rest? Far and few in between, but they are produced by the talented ones. Of course the award winner, that was not planned is not a SNAPSHOT. Even though it may have been a quick snap.

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

You need to see a book by Gordon Laing. It is titled "in camera," How To Get Perfect Pictures Straight Out Of The Camera.
I think it would refute your assertion that it is not the gear or photographer.
Gordon Laing demonstrates with plenty of amazing photos that it is not always necessary to PP a photo to have a great image.
All the images in his book were taken with mirrorless cameras and had no post processing done to them. They are JPEGs straight OOC.
At least that's what he says in the preface of the book.
I would not be ashamed to say I had taken any of the 204 images in this book.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I think that it is each person's own idea of what might be a snapshot, a picture or a photograph. To ME, a snapshot is a quick shot of the kids on their bicycles or roller skates, the dog at the dog park or at the beach, something you probably wouldn't enlarge for a print, but you would tuck away in an album of treasured memories.. A picture, to me, is one that's often very pretty but you still wouldn't print as a wall hanger. A photograph is probably good enough to frame and of course a masterpiece SHOULD be enlarged and on many walls! Like I said...my opinion is worth what it costs....but it's mine and I'll probably just keep it.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I think "too much" is also a matter of taste and/or opinion. To me, those deep royal blue skies are sometimes pretty IF it looks like they were made late in the evening. That can often be accomplished by darkening the sky a bit and then lowering the saturation a bit. If it's too bright and the grass is a rich kelly green, it seems too much to me. If the Blue Jay is brilliant Royal Blue, I find it too unbelievable. Having said all that, there are times I find brilliant, unreal color acceptable, as in hot air balloons. Sometimes it take extra rich color to make it pop...but sky and grass....unreal...not for me.

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

If you consider photography a visual ART, like other visual arts- painting, pastel renditions, pen and ink, silk screening and other graphics you then realize that each artist has their own color perception, pallette, if you will and his or her own unique kind of self expression in the use of color. Not every artist needs or wants to interpret every scene or subject in a standard or uniform manner. There are purists and fantasists. There are literal and abstract works of art that appeal to a wide and varied "audience".

Photography is like music and poetry. Are the majestic mountains really "PURPLE"- or is that just excessive UV that needs to be filtered out? Is the sky really a wild BLUE yonder - well it's gray on some days. How "golden are daffodils? Are the Autumn leaves really "RED AND GOLD" or are the just brown? In my old neighborhood the "deep BLUE sea" was actually kinda greenish brown- ugh!

From a viewer's point of view, color has a great psychological effect. Some folks react well to very vivid and possibly exaggerated colors other feel better about muted tones. There are colors that make you hungry and others that can suppress your appetite. There are colors that can calm down persons with psychological or neurological issues.

What is "overcooked" or for that matter "undercooked" color saturation? It's a matter of taste and self expression. I suppose there is a time and a place for authenticity and accuracy and so there is a time and a place for exaggeration, affectation and altered realities.

Perhaps post processing software is like fast sports cars. When you first get one you might wanna go full throttle just to see what it can do. The after a couple of speeding tickets, you might tend to take a more moderate approach and save the speed for the racetrack. It's all a learning process, a matter of personal taste and self expression.

Back in the peak of the film era there were hundreds of different films, each with its own palette, contrast, color bias, tonal scale and more. We had to pick and choose according to our taste and requirements. There were special infrared emulsions for scientific use but were oftentimes applied to exaggerated and special effects. Folks did cross-processing for more out of the box effects. Nowadays we can do all of this with a few "sliders" and buttons. Or- we can precisely calibrate everything and come up with nearly exact color reproduction.

Everyone can easily do their THING and why not?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Are you saying that art is subjective? ;)

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I say to each his own, yes...be it art in photography, snapshots, pictures, photos or the kind of art I have done for 76 years, with paint and a few brushes. That turned into a business for me and a pretty good one. When I paint, sometimes I choose to get rather colorful...sometimes not, so I think it's a matter of do what pleases YOU. It doesn't have to please ME or anyone else, but for me, every kind of photography has its place. Every kind of art has it's place. Someone will like it, no matter where it lands in one's opinion. There are all levels of photographers here...all levels of artists. Some will be better than you. Some will be worse and no matter who you are, that is always a fact. Sorry if that doesn't answer your question but it's just an opinion.

skywolf

Post-production is important, to be sure, but there are things that if you don't get it right in the camera, you can't fix it in post. You blow something out, you're going to have to work to get something to fill it. If your focus is off, you can't fix that. It's ALWAYS better to get the best image in the camera.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Well I apologize as you didn't quite get my humor. :(

Yes art is subjective. You have described some of the details of that.