leftj Loc: Texas

Rant away if it makes you feel better. I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way about the advent of automobiles. One important counter to your rant is that there is no hassle finding film or getting it developed. Both are plentiful.

leftj Loc: Texas

Don't forget light and composition.

cthahn

Nothing happened to photography. It is the people who purchase an expensive camera, never read the manual, get the longest zoom lens they can't really afford, have no clue about the basics of photography, and as soon as the box comes they are a photographer. Many will probably never advance past picture taker status as they will never understand that the photographer takes the picture, not the camera.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Some regard the camera to be a recording device, others a creative tool. similarly, a darkroom can be seen as a way to take a negative and process it into a print, others see it as a creative tool with which to realize the photographic artist's vision and turn it into art. To many, the darkroom, and now digital post processing, is a continuation of the process that begins with the arrival at the scene even before you take the camera out of the bag.

In the advertising industry, commercial photography is heavily adjusted and optimized. This has always been the case, as it has been among creative artistic photographers.

Years ago, cabinet makers had only hand tools to work with. Today, they have CNC milling machines, routers and panel saws, laser guided chop saws, 3D replicating routers to duplicate existing moldings, computer aided design and drafting systems, visualization systems that can render a 3D model of the finished product. The result is a level of efficiency not possible with just using hand tools. It takes a skill to learn and master the new tools, no different that the old days, and the results can be just as good, if not better. Same goes for photography. It used to take months to produce a wedding album. Now the bride can have a proof set within hours of the end of the reception, and she can even view images taken at the church of the ceremony before the reception begins.

Taking a picture with a digital camera is most definitely a computerized image, if you accept that a digital camera is nothing but a small, hand-holdable, specialized, minicomputer that reads analog visual information and converts it into digital data.

Take a look at the out of the camera "real" and "true" image below, and compare it to the second, "heavily edited and manipulated" one. Which do you think is more "real" and nicer to the eyes, and captures more of the feeling the photographer experienced when he took it? There is nothing memorable or "artful" in the first image. But with excellent darkroom skills, coupled with an accurate sense of exposure, Ansel Adams was able to create a masterpiece.

Today, given the current standards of image quality, it is not hard to spot an unaltered image from one that has received a skillful treatment to, as Ansel Adams put it, “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.” Your professional photographer friend must not have been aware of one of the most skillful photographic "cheaters" to have ever lived. I would love to have seen that guy's work.

https://expertphotography.com/10-photography-lessons-from-ansel-adams/

There is a place for un-manipulated images. Photojournalism, reportage, horse race finish lines, etc.

So to answer the question posed in your topic, It's gotten better, and it is far more accessible than it used to be.
.
.

"real and true"


manipulation

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I used Kodachrome 25, which was universally accepted as the finest color film, throughout the film era. No sane person developed his own Kodachrome.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The second one is nicer art.
The first one is real, what was actually there.

leftj Loc: Texas

Actually the second one is closer to the detail you saw with 20/20 vision of the naked eye.

Hal81 Loc: Bucks County, Pa.

Time marches on. Things change.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

So, "real" is better?

For what it's worth, real would be going there, waiting for exactly the right conditions, and viewing the same scene, without a camera. That's real.

The minute he snapped the picture, it ceased to be real, and became a chemical recording and representation.

I think the second one is more "real" based on his vision and what he wanted us to experience when we look at it.

But the point is, image manipulation is perfectly valid, as have been the numerous trends in fine art through the years - realists, impressionists, cubists, etc etc etc - all are valid and "real" in one sense or another.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Amen to that!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I am a documentarian - not an artist. I record physical facts, not feelings. I believe there should be room for both Gary Winogrand and Ansel Adams in our pantheon. I believe straight Jack Friday "just the facts" is just as valid as image manipulation.

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Heh, I am using my DH Canon EOS 620 film camera with a Canon Zoom EF 100-300mm 1:5.6 lens and happy to do so. All it needed was a battery; and I bought film. Now I am going to pay $20 per roll to get a CD, upload images to some web address, my negatives, and 4x6 prints for each roll. That's the price at www.thedarkroom.com. I'm still happy.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I shot film exclusively from 1967 to 2000. Made enough money to put myself through school at first, then support my family. Had a darkroom for black and white, and could and did on occasion process color and cibachrome. But that was for myself, mostly. Sent 90% of my work out to three NYC labs, one that specialized in excellent custom printed B&W, another that did excellent Cibachrome and Dye Transfer prints, and the other was just a very good and consistent general purpose color lab. They allowed me to shoot more and earn more money. It was a matter of efficiency and cost effectiveness. That's how we did it.

I don't think you were around back then, or if you were, you may not have known many working photographers.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That was somewhat tongue in cheek, addressing the OP who feels digital photographers are not real photographers when he didn't do darkroom work. And I was a professional back then, and shot mostly B&W and did all my own darkroom work.

turp77 Loc: Connecticut, Plainfield

This is a great article that everyone thinking photoshop ruined photography. Read the artical and see what was possible to do in the darkroom back in the mid 1800's

http://m.digitaljournal.com/a-and-e/arts/fake-photo-of-ulysses-s-grant-has-fooled-people-for-a-century/article/448098