Accelerator

The new york times manipulates every single thing in it. It is a rag compared to what it used to be.

bobzeller Loc: San Angelo, Texas

Well said, Ranger. :D

twindad Loc: SW Michigan, frolicking in the snow.

I'm pretty sure I'd like to get through one of these threads where Ansel Adams ISN'T mentioned as though he were God. I went through this thread because I knew there would be a lot of good answers to the OP's question. Adams' name was mentioned a total of six times in ten pages.
There are, and have been, so many fine photographers in this world. Hell, some of them are on this forum. Maybe we can find another photographer or two to mention.
Yes, I know he was the icon of landscape, and because of that, his name is used in these discussions, but surely there are other photographers in the world.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I'm curious what the "get it right in the camera" crowd think about the new cameras that have an HDR function built into them, or the iPhone cameras that have some very interesting and very good software built into their cameras.

Once you realize that each camera maker, bar none, has software engineers who create the little computer that runs our cameras, and programmers who then program those little computers to create a file with lots of 0's and 1's, and that each camera maker has its own idea of what the perfect picture is, and that you can actually change the programming with the menus on your camera, then you might realize that there is no such thing as "getting it right in the camera" because we really don't know whose version of right we're talking about.

This thread sounds much like most of the religious bible-thumping and faith threads that show up on Facebook, Huffington Post, etc.

My god's better than your god.
My god's better than yours
My god's better 'cause he eats Ken-L-Ration.
My god's better than yours!

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Perhaps this analogy will help. Creating a photograph can be compared to preparing food. A simple cold salad or a basic boiled meat-and-potatoes dish or a simple sandwich can be acceptable or palatable or even delicious, depending on the ingredients. But a salad or sandwich or dinner meal carefully prepared with appropriate dressing and spices and condiments is much, much better. Of course, there are cooks who are sometimes over-the-top and serve a meal that will repel many. A fair photo can often benefit from appropriate post-processing, while a really good shot can become outstanding in other cases.
But caution must be used in matching subject and PP or the result can become bizarre (unless that's the effect you want).

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Ok, for all those who only manipulate in the camera and not in photoshop, like that was something dirty.

Camera: Olympus EM-1
Lens: Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 zoom

RAW in LR5 untouched converted to Jpeg - NO MANIPULATION ON MY OR THE CAMERA'S PART

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7339/13160212173_0c21feb24e_b.jpg
_3130002.jpg by savingspaces33, on Flickr

RAW and my adjustments (this picture is manipulated by me as part of POST PROCESSING)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/13160995953_e6bd239e10_b.jpg
_3130003.jpg by savingspaces33, on Flickr

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I think Ansel Adams is mentioned so often because among people interested in landscape photography he's probably the most recognized and famous name. I know there's lots of great photographers in the past and present but I couldn't name any off the top of my head except AA. But in the context of this discussion he is worth mentioning because the great striking landscape features that existed in his black and white landscapes were never seen by him except in his mind. The original negatives looked a lot like ordinary snapshots. But by using the darkroom, the snow and clouds became whiter, the sky darker, the moon brighter, the rivers more sparking, etc. Everything achieved an unnatural level of contrast and presence which made the images breath taking. Had he displayed his unprocessed landscape prints he wouldn't have had the same career or fame.
Another poster in another thread mentioned a current photographer who seems to me in some of his photos to be a modern day Ansel Adams. His name is Keoki Flagg. Here's a link to his landscapes of Lake Tahoe:
http://www.gallerykeoki.com/Portfolios.php?Port=TH
I see a lot of the Adams technique in his subjects and post processing which is no doubt digital. I think his color processing is something that was not achievable in Adams' time. Some of his photos are as breath taking to me as the work Adams did, but his are in color and black and white. Apparently other people must think of him as a modern day Adams as well judging by the price list for his prints.

Clyde141

tdekany - You missed some grease spots on the floor in your post processing!

mcm981 Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Shoot in Jpeg and you leave it to the camera to process. Shoot RAW and you make the decisions.

Do you want a "take away" cooked chicken, or do you like to cook it yourself.

mcm981 Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Shoot in Jpeg and you leave it to the camera to process. Shoot RAW and you make the decisions.

Do you want a "take away" cooked chicken, or do you like to cook it yourself.

johnske Loc: Townsville

I'm sure most here have already "learnt" what you are suggesting - however you appear not to have learnt that there is no camera made, film or digital, that 'sees' things exactly as the human eye sees things, so it is rarely possible to "take the photos the way you want them to turn out", you're actually talking rubbish.

The reason? - DYNAMIC RANGE! - occasionally you can get shots that approximate closely what the eye sees, but not often, the rest require some post processing or even a HDR treatment.

Anyway, if you are happy to settle for the generally lesser quality of a SOOC shot and blown highlights then by all means go for it, but don't expect many of us to follow you along that path

I really feel though that anyone that is really serious about photography should have a copy of photoshop (or similar) and learn how to use it - try it, you may be surprised just how much you learn and how much your photography improves

James Shaw

Well, KJ Smith, speaking for myself, only, I can say that I do not always get a chance for that second shot, if the first one is not good enough. Secondly, I use free PP software (FastStone Image Viewer; it's a great viewer, but much more), and personally I enjoy tweaking my photos to my liking rather than have the "drug store" handle them; although some drug stores do a pretty good job. Finally, I take my PP photos to Costco for printing because the printer, paper, ink cartridges etc. can get expensive.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

How many times to the store? I figure the printer would pay for itself! I am sorry you don't have room for one :(

James Shaw

Very impressive!

renomike Loc: Reno, Nevada

Sorry you don't like Ansel Adams. As far as I'm concerned for his time period and the equipment he had on hand to use, he was a photographic God, and still is today. Just like Edward S. Curtis's and the American Indian pictures he took. I agree there were many great early photographers, but most never had the reputation of Adams and Curtis.

Mike