Bill_de Loc: US

Yes!
Hang out at https://woodnet.net

---

stangage

One of the most revered photographers of all time and whose work is set forth as a standard by which others might be judged is Ansel Adams. I don't have at my fingertips some before/after/light-room images of the work done by this master but suffice to say, the out of cameras images of his most famous photos are perhaps the most washed out not worth saving out of camera shots that you can imagine. Adams was a master of composition in the field and a master of light in the light room.
It takes both to make the most memorable works of PHOTOGRAPHIC art.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Ansel Adams did blah blah blah.

srt101fan

Who knew! 🤔

SWFeral Loc: SWNM

I'm sure people do this all the time. I don't. It doesn't bother me.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yawn.

This is the same old tired argument that has been going on since the early days of photography in the 1800s.

Photography is a process. It requires a system that enables performance of a series of events, and it requires a person or people to perform all the steps required by that system to complete the process.

Plenty of images are created poorly in manual mode. Arguably, those who don't know what they are doing in manual make MORE errors than those using Auto, Program, Ai, Ai+, S, or A modes, or auto ISO or autofocus.

Many images are captured at the camera, but MADE in the darkroom or Lightroom and Photoshop. Post-capture processing is, after all, part of that SYSTEM of photography. It is inseparable from capture.

Film photography, especially color negative film photography, was most likely to involve a lab technician in addition to a photographer. Often, the photographer had no idea what went on in the lab. While color negative film development itself is a rigidly controlled process, the evaluation of negatives in color analysis and printing is highly subjective. Photographers relied upon lab technicians to "make them look good." All too often, they had NO IDEA how good those lab techs made them look! (I know this because I worked for a company that ran a large commercial lab, and dealt with lots of customers who had no clue...)

In the digital world, that post-capture photofinishing process is often under control of the photographer, now. It is quite possible — easy for some of us — to be a control freak from end-to-end.

I have always believed that while skill is required at the camera to capture a workable image, the true completion of the image might happen after capture. In many cases, the actual image capture is the 10% of an iceberg we see above water. The mass of work that follows is often what turns a mere frame grab into a masterpiece.

Photoshop isn't going to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. It won't rescue a file with evidence of camera shake, missed focus, or extreme exposure errors. What it can do is turn the boring into the interesting. It can turn a merely interesting capture into an outstanding image.

I just define a photographer as a maker of photographs. I don't care how they are made, I care how they move me, communicate to me, teach me, or otherwise affect me. It doesn't matter what camera or software or printer you use. I care about what your image means or how it makes me feel. If you make images that grab me, then you're a real photographer.

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

And here you are contributing to it......

dwmoar Loc: Oregon, Willamette Valley

Fred Flintstone used a Polarock Camera :)

Fred Flintstone's Polarock Camera

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

Another insightful Paul Sager whiticism!!

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

I think that the reason this argument continues is that PP requires a different skill set, some who were once considered "really good" photographers are now "left behind in the dust" because they have difficulty learning to post process (myself included).
I used to get angry because someone who did not have the ambition, or dedication to return to the same spot over, and over looking for the perfect sky, and lighting to make the perfect photograph could now simply replace the sky with another one of his, or someone elses, (yes I've heard that Ansel Adams did sky replacements)
I no longer get angry about that, it has become the new norm and I have to adapt if I am going to keep at it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Hooray!

BebuLamar

I am not good at PP like replacing sky, moving objects etc.. but I am never angry about what others do. I do my photography my way and I don't care what others do because I am not a professional.
Now a professional will have to do what the clients want. He has to deliver what the clients are after.

Bill_de Loc: US

Thank you for YOUR contribution.

---

Dalbon

I totally agree with you and I believe the finish photograph is in the photographers hands and how he or she wants to project their work. It's up to the viewer whether or not they agree with the photographers interruption. It's the end results that count.
David

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

You can set the camera an any setting and take a bad picture or a great picture the camera or you can do the setting but the picture is made by the eye behind the lens.