TabascoEd Loc: San Antonio, Dallas,Texas

Somehow the extreme PP on most published photos leaves me cold. That's me - processing is OK for others. By the same token, a couple of years ago, I entered a prestigious art competition (my first entry and probably last) and took first place in photography with a 5" X 7" 'as shot' that was carefully printed and carefully mounted. No heroics, and no great talent either, but done with great care and nicely presented. Makes me wonder if PP is worth it when you could be out shooting new scenes and trying new ideas.

As to the last generation. Many of those great photographers lugged around huge view cameras. Enormous lens diameters, careful focus to get full frame images precisely on the ground glass. Relatively long exposure times. Maybe we need to learn a new camera approach with DSLRs more than we need to learn computer processing techniques.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

HDR gets a bad rap because of the grunge effect. (forgive the spelling if it is wrong)
My HDR's look like real photos. I try to recreate what the human eye sees.
Oh well, this debate will go on forever.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

The two are identical. It's just that electronic PP is (a) a lot easier and (b) offers even the unskilled a vastly greater range of options. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that it is sometimes overdone or simply badly done. It's the overdoing and incompetence that get it a bad name, as if a few speeding motorists were to give all fast cars a bad name, or bad cooks were to get all cooks a bad name. Jer (above) has it right.

Cheers,

R.

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

Lensman wrote:

"I really don't want to hear how Ansel Adams utilized his darkroom. We are not talking about simple dodging and burning."

If you think all he did was simple dodging and burning then you have no idea about what he did to an image from straight out of the box to his finished print. Of course he was not the only photographer to ever do extensive PP work in the dark room, he just happens to be the most talked about, in general circles.

Regarding the statements about photographs that are:

"Unaltered and straight out of the box", there is no such thing and never will be, so don't bother trying to grasp at that straw.

Any photo or should I say negative from the old days was never able to be seen as being "straight out of the box" as it has been put, because it would look different each time if you changed the chemicals you were using, slightly altered the temps of those chemicals, used different papers not just manufacturer but they also came in grades you know, and then there were the different film types available.

So any change to any one of these things and your "straight out of the box" image was no longer that, they would also look somewhat different to the eye. Just like a straight out of the box image of today say a RAW file would also not look very good because it does need post work done to get it to be an acceptable finished image.

Think of a RAW image as your collected ingredients for a chef to create a dinner. Ten different chefs would create ten different dinners with those collected ingredients and ten different photographers would create ten different finished images from that one RAW file, depending on what they had in mind as a finished item.

Therefore, there has never been a day when we could expect to judge any print as a straight print or straight out of the box capture. So all those of you asking for such a thing, forget it, it has never existed so don't expect it to suddenly exist today.

This means such a discussion is futile, now, tomorrow or next year, therefore accept it that a finished image will always be what the maker has in their mind and should be taken as just that, a maker's finished idea on paper or in an image file for display on a screen.

There is no such thing as a "straight photograph" or "straight out of the box" example and never has been.

BigTomN

Having been trained in darkroom work since the age of 8 or so, I naturally look at a photo "from the back end," or, what can be done with it.
I absolutely admire those who so carefully adjust all settings before the shot and love to browse the books produced by the masters (and note the amount of HDRs appearing in them now),I also appreciate those who make a so-so shot into a great one.
HDR has come to the photographic art and will become just another editing tool. There are plenty of lousy HDRs, so art still rules, no matter how produced. IMHO Tom

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I take shots of differnt things to satisfy myself and family, not other people and least of all, some judge or judges. Photography is a subjective medium, a so called "good shot" means differnt things to differnt people, which is why people like to critique photographs. I take shots of differnt things just for the sheer enjoyment of it. I compose a photograph so it is pleasing to my eye. This business of "every photo should tell a story". When I take a photo, I know what story it tells, I don't care if other people follows the story or not.

Virgil Loc: The Hoosier State

Totally agree!

Virgil Loc: The Hoosier State

You are probably right and this, I'm sure, has worked its way into camera clubs also. The guy who doesn't choose to manipulate his art may as well go sit in the corner!