sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Adams did the same thing(s) you mention in the darkroom that many of us do on the computer. We can argue better, or worse, just different media. The main difference is you can trade those nasty chemicals for some nasty software that can potentially alter an image a little faster. The results vary based on the skill and vision of the photographer and/or editor.
Adorama produces a ton of videos by photographer pro Mark Wallace.
The question was asked can you produce an image SOOC without needing any PP. In his opinion, the answer is no. The videos are available on Youtube.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Both of the photographers that you mentioned did as much post-shot "processing" as anyone today. It was variously called exposure adjustment, dodging, burning, etc. Ansel manipulated many of his shots over and over to change the way they appeared in print.

Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

Ansel Adams sometimes spent weeks in the darkroom processing a photo to his liking. As you progress in your photography knowledge and ability you may change your mind about processing. If not and you like your clean, out of camera work then so be it. As long as you're happy with it that's all that counts. I have many photographer friends. Some PP, some don't. We all share our in camera and PP techniques. I've never run into a photographer with a better than thou attitude. Most are willing to share and help if I ask for advice. And that includes Pros who are in business to make a living.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The best photographers, aka professionals mostly, are both artistically blessed and technically competent in picture making versus picture taking. We all enjoy the chase.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

That is ABSOLUTELY pure, pure, pure speculation.
Maybe he would have HATED PS sooo much that he would have quit doing photography!!!!!
Nobody knows what a dead man would have wanted!!!!!!!!
SS

AZ Dog Loc: Peoria, AZ

Thanks, Jim. That is much more in line with what I am thinking. I never realized this would start such a big ruckus. I do have a post in mind that started all this, but I would not care to call out this person for what he did, and there were others that thought his work was very good.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

I think you're missing the basic point. YOU should approach photography in the manner which best suits YOU! Were I you, I'd spend more time studying what you do than on criticizing what others do. Have you not ever liked something that someone else thought was ugly? Have you never enjoyed a movie that the critics hated? If so, which of you was in the wrong? Row your own boat, and do try to leave no wake.....

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Quixdraw Loc: x

Some subjects the site could be renamed Ugly Feudin' & Fightin'. Opinions, and ... what was that body part that everyone has? IMO

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Although it is also speculation, will agree with twillsol that Adams would have enjoyed PS and LR. Although he photographed in color, it was written he always preferred B&W, saying that color (in his opinion) was distracting.
I think he would have initially loved using modern software and techniques, but I have a feeling that like many of us we would have returned to that which we know best. We will never know, but still fun to discuss.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

YES! Totally Agree.

Even in digital - as well as with film - As I shoot in the RAW format without Post-Processing = The image is sort of "flat". It lacks the finer tonality, the feeling of what You wish to place into the final Print - or displayed image on a screen.

As in the chemical darkroom, Digital Post-Processing is where the Artist In You comes into play. Even if there are two or ten other photographers capturing the same given object - the final outcome is always a bit different.

Bill_de Loc: US

"I see no reason why any control that is of purely photographic nature is not valid. However, I believe that the border line of good taste usually lies this side of retouching or employment of texture screens, diffusion and distortion devices, paper negatives, and methods such as bromoil and gum printing, all of which, in my opinion, deviate from strictly "straight" photographic procedure."

Ansel Adams ... "The Print"

Of course he could have a different opinion if he was alive today. But based on his feelings in 1950, he wouldn't be thrilled with everything being done today in the name of photography. We must also remember that paint artists claimed a photograph could never be considered art. I think that last part may have just been aimed at me. :)


---

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

Must take some nominal exception here. By PP the OP meant alteration of an images attributes. The 'processing in camera' is not image alteration. The data from a sensor is a long series of "0"s and "1"s organized in pixel groups. The camera has a limited capability CPU that does very few image things amoung which is a fixed form algorithm that compresses that data stream to make a jpeg file. When some external app opens that jpeg a reversing algorithm runs to restore the original binary signal. There have been several jpeg algorithms over the years: the original was 'lossy' and later developments sought to get closser to lossless. So it stands to reason that binary sensor data to jpeg in the oldest digital camera would be quite different from that of today's most advanced digital camera. Some cameras even compress 'raw' data: I read somewhere that some Sony cameras compress a raw 14 bit depth pixel to 11 pixels by some algorithm. If yor PP software or your photo viewer app are unaware of this algorithm, then you should see garbage for the most part. Considering all the camera manufacturers and all the viewing device manufacturers and all the PP software producers, isn't that enough to find lots of problems (I got lost in this last thought so throw me a break).

Yooper 2 Loc: Ironwood, MI

Excellent advice.

kmohr3 Loc: Rockford, IL

During the last few years I have learned that almost 100% of photos one takes can use some sort of post processing to some degree or another. On almost every photo I display anywhere I adjust the levels, lift the shadows a little, tone down the highlights and sharpen - among other things...