BrandyVSOP Loc: Oregon USA

I think this has been going on since cameras first came along and technology and progress led to newer, easier, faster, and less costly ways of taking pictures.

I can only imagine the discussions of glass sensitized plates to the invention of films. Even in film we had the different choices of speed, and color or black & white film. Was B&W film the only pure way of doing photography, Why would anyone want color!

Growing up in film days, and before everything was all automatic, I'm glad I learned the things I did and their relationships. ASA, F/Stops, Shutter speeds. I try to get it as right as I can with my camera. It would be great if this always happened. But it doesn't for me. The Technologies of today with digital allow me to end of with a nicer image to look at. With film we dodged burned, and rubbed out enlargement paper while in the chemicals to warm and area up to make it develop faster...

Its all about progress and change, and it always will be...
Kind of like an old farmer using a horse drawn plow vs a farmer today using the modern fossil fuel driven equipment they use today... Is the purest with the horse drawn plow and better?

I guess we can all choose to forgo or embrace new technologies that come to us!

My Dad used an Argus C3, and some of the first Polaroid cameras that came about. I got into photography in the early 70's when lenses for cameras were changing from Screw Mount to Bayonet mount. I've had a lot of different cameras along my path, still, all with the same hope of taking a picture that makes me happy...

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

It all comes down to...What makes you happy. I wouldn't think of taking a picture and adding or subtracting an object, I want it to look like like how I snapped it at that point in time, I might make it lighter or darker to try to improve the photo, that's just my thing. At the same time, I'll never begrudge anyone who likes to change the composition of a fhoto they took, that's their thing. When a topic rambles on like this, sometimes a sentence or word might be taken out of context. Times are changing, twenty years from now, photo shop will be considerd "Old School"

wetaft Loc: Las Vegas N.M.

I started in the darkroom myself before I ever new about digital cameras, I have to say paying for your own film and needing to get the shot just right had its advantages, the main one I would say is that it made me a better photographer because you only had 12,24 or 36 chances.However becoming digitally proficient has had its advantages as well. Now I take 50or60 picures of a subject and get far better images before even post prcessing any of them because Im not afraid of wasting film.You can take this with a grain of salt if you want but my advice is take the plunge to digital; I think purist or not it will also make you a better photographer you still have the satisfaction of saying "that is an unatrered shot isn't it beautiful!"

Sensei

Your "rant" is valid. There are just times when you don't have time for both setup,and geting the shot. Sometimes I use the camera to get more than my eye can see. Digital is just a tool. If the we go back far enough we have to be using charcoal sticks to write on cave walls. In some art galleries and among some art groups a photo is not art. While somehow adjusting PP or creating the image entirely in PhotoShop, may be something that the venue can understand. There are some that accept the idea of using Photoshop or another program as a creative process, while some can not.
A little like the oil painter who thinks water color is just for kids. Use what ever makes you happy, and have fun.

hraver Loc: Coxsackie, NY

I am inclined to agree with the purist approach, but with the demise of kodachrome, I decided to go digital and shoot only in RAW. The attached photo was shot in Sept 1984 in southern Germany on Kodachrome 64 using Olympus OM1 50mm prime lens

Black Forest Kodachrome 64 circa 1984

Chip

i'm a purist too. if power lines are in the shot so be it. that is what you see in real life. i make a few changes in elements but essentially leave the shot as seen with the naked eye and the camera lens.

Aleaze Loc: Michigan

Webster definition of photography -- the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface

Oxford definition of photography -- the art or practice of taking and processing photographs

Oxford definition of photograph -- a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally

How do you define a purist? Where would a purist define the end of the process of producing images or made visible and permanent?

Is adding filters, adjusting exposure on a camera, removing, adding items from the area or adding props part of the process of producing images? Is adjusting exposure, colors, adding or removing items on a digital file part of the process of making the photograph visible?

My point of view. Some photographers want to work harder upfront, others at the end of the process. Neither is any more or any less of a purist.

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

It's interesting to read the differences of opinions on today's technology when it all boils down to who is going to have the best consistent results in the long run. The old time photographers are going to have an advantage in that working with film cameras makes them more cognizant of what it takes, but the digital camera user has a tool that does the job a lot more frequently. The only reason I can think of why someone with the knowledge and skill wouldn't move up to digital is that they've got a lot invested in the equipment they already own. All of that technical knowledge can only enhance the results when using a digital camera.

As far as postwork is concerned, I don't particularly care what was done if the composition and results are pleasing. Postwork can improve a bad photo but it doesn't make a bad photo good. You have to have a good shot to begin with. No matter what camera used, if you don't have an eye for good composition, no amount of expensive equipment or tweaking is going to make it good.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

I cannot believe you actually wrote this. You're comparing someone who enhances a picture to Hitler? Are you out of your mind? How could you think that, much less put it in print?

I have to say, I am a member of a woodworking forum. Some of the posts there have gone off track and gotten out of hand, but at times this forum sets new lows for rudeness and downright meanness . The other day someone said that someone who criticizes a parents' kid should be castrated. I've never encountered the incivility in any other forum that I've seen here. This is a great place for sharing and learning, but, my god, can't we all just lighten up a bit?

saside Loc: live in pueblo co

Yes we need to underexpose our comments lol

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

My thoughts exactly, there are some people who write stuff down before they think about what their writing

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

I try to get the most I can out of the camera. That's subject, light, composition, exposure. I don't have expensive equipment, never could afford it. In the old days, the film came out of the camera, went to the developer, came back, and was what it was, so I guess you could say I was a purist back then of necessity.

If Photoshop can help me improve a shot, then I'll use Photoshop. I'd rather that the photo was "perfect" right out of the camera. Sometimes, a few tweaks makes a big difference, and sometimes it takes a lot of work, and sometimes, nothing will convert an interesting shot into one of acceptable quality.

When I'm finished, you'd be hard put to know if I've Photoshopped an image or not. Photoshop is no worse than an old-fashioned smelly darkroom where you blew up, and cropped and dodged and burned. It's another tool, which you can take out or leave in your bag.

As others have pointed out, this kind of discussion has gone on since the first images were captured on metal, glass or paper, and will undoubtedly go on pretty much forever.

johnr9999 Loc: Carlton, OR

Oh for goodness sake! I got the clear impression from Sinatraman that he was not comparing a person who enhances a picture to Hitler, but was rather saying that being a purist is not the be-all and end-all but that a thing can be taken to extremes. Lighten up, indeed!