Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

Well said .... though we have to keep in mind that the software in the camera itself has made the default PP in the jpeg file. I agree with you wholeheartedly. :thumbup:

DavidPhares Loc: Chandler, Arizona

To ASR666 - "Allowed" by whom? You mean we have "Photo Police" now? We shoot weddings for one purpose: to make brides and brides' mothers happy. Do you really think they care what we do to RAW images to obtain that "perfect" image?

As far as journalism, I will apply the court standard as applied to photographs offered as evidence, "Does this image accurately represent the scene on the day in question?" If the answer is yes, it is a good photograph. As a matter of forensic photography, you never touch the original image. You plan before hand, very carefully, and shoot accordingly.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I don't see this as a problem at all. The whole picture taking process is artificial. Post processing began as the first negative was being developed, and it has continued right on through Photoshop and other software.

If the police are taking photos for evidence, that's one thing, but if you want to have beautiful images of a vacation or where you live, then software can help.

ottopj Loc: Annapolis, MD USA

I agree to some point. I find it hard when a photo is altered by adding people, a moon, dogs and buildings, etc.

Perhaps, a new title would, could be "Image Creator."

After all, synchronized swimming is a sport?

Just a thought.

lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

"When people routinely ENHANCE their photos through software and present it as their "photograph" and present themselves as a "photographer" without revealing the manipulation it just seems a little dishonest."



I see absolutely no relevance to the concept of dishonesty. A photographer (or whatever name you care to call him) prepares an image and presents it. There is only dishonesty if he says something about it that is untrue.

The viewer makes his own interpretation - . How I capture a picture and what I do with it is my business and mine alone. I have my view and the viewer has his. I present it as an image that is temporarily complete and I can go back and make another version however and whenever I wish.

If one thinks that an image is merely an illusion - it has its own reality.

PJinOH Loc: Columbus, OH

I understand the points you are bringing up, and as someone who has been taking photos for 30 years, but has never had the expertise to manipulate film images, I agree that there is something to getting right "straight out of the camera". I've taken shots that I've edited, or manipulated, and I've come out with results that I really like. I take more pride, though, in shots that I've visualized and then used what I've learned over the years to get it without any post production editing.

And this does come down to why I take pictures in the first place; because I enjoy it. If someone else likes or critiques my shots, that's fine. But I took the shot for me and it mostly matters to me how I feel about it.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

There does come a certain point in over use of digital post processing where an image can no longer be considered a photograph and has become an illustration.

peteaaa Loc: weiser, Idaho

I don't know whether anyone in here has used slide compositions or not but I have seen some that was absolutely beautiful. I know that a lot of pictures in magizines was exactly that.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

To me, this whole argument is moot. I belonged to a competitive camera club in the 1970's that, after judging, always asked who the maker was, not who the taker was. We've always been "making" photographs. The process is a little more sophisticated these days, but the idea of making a photograph rather than taking it hasn't changed. Ansel Adams made his photographs; Gene Smith made his photographs; We make our photographs. People will make their photographs as long as there's some kind of means to do so.

texasdan78070 Loc: Texas Hill Country

@ rpavich....thanks to the first page of photos (flickr), I now have the urge to buy a Ram pickup and drive to the nearest restaurant!!!

Dcn Bob Loc: Hamilton, NJ

I agree, it does not matter if we use a dark room, software, zoom lens, filters, gels, flashes or any other tool we might have, we are all making photographs.

Max Savant Loc: Memphis, TN

I am an old school analog photographer, so I thought I would add my 2 cents...
Darkroom work, to my mind, was still a photographic skill in the days of film and chemicals and enlargers. Light and lense and time were all part of the process. But there came a point when my photography would be handed off to a Graphic Artist for some considerable amount of manipulation, masking, retouch, even airbrushing. Anyone remember Rubylith? Those guys were artists in their own right and had skills that were beyond most photographers. PS blended the darkroom and the light table, in one fell swoop. I never considered myself a graphic artist, but as digital has grown, I, of course, have had to adapt, and cross the line from photographer to graphic manipulator. Those of you that have tried to find a actual job with the title photographer, will have no doubt noticed the lack of photography jobs offered in comparison to the number of graphic artists positions on offer. This is due to the perception that anyone can take a picture, but not everyone can draw. While graphic artists similarly have seen chartpaks, and light tables and ruby lith and exacto knives, go the way of kodachrome and enlargers, their skills are still in demand
Where we, as photographers have suffered, is that everyone has a camera in their phone now, and feel that imperfections can be solved, that is to say, hidden, with a graphics program (which they can, just as they could save a less than perfectly executed photograph in the old days). But even the graphic artists appreciated a well made photo back then. It made their job easier! We called it keeping it IN CAMERA. Unfortunately, the concept of creating a image "in camera" has fallen to the wayside. I hear too many say "I'll fix it in photoshop". Which for so many means overcooking it with HDR.
Geez... you can even save a unfocused shot with a computer these days... which is for all intents and purposes saying ... you don't even HAVE to focus anymore, cause someone with a computer can fix it.
Let me end my rant by saying this... I use my PS as I would a darkroom, but those who will never see a darkroom or smell a tray developer or fight dust off a enlarger won't even know what that means. There is a line in PS that crosses the photographic/graphic artist barrier that once existed
that we will all have to learn to live with.....

Dcn Bob Loc: Hamilton, NJ

For those who have never worked in a dark room, you have missed so much never smelling the chemicals, sloshing the trays, controlling the light from the enlarger and drying the prints. Fond memories from many years ago.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Yes, it's a form of "ART"! For example, IR photography which had been there since the film era. That's why there are different categories in photography, like the "Altered Reality", but you still need good skill and knowledge to take a good image at first! That's the different between a photographer and a picture taker!

Tjgphoto Loc: South Carolina

I shoot raw, Also being in a hurry to shoot with limited allotted time allowed to photogs . A little tweaking of contrast I don't think is a big deal, after a paper magazine gets hols of it, it never looks as good as the original image.. That's the life we live in, Having the time to sit with a tripod , hours taking landscape is not in the real life picture. Tweaking on a tripod or afterwards is the same thing.