KJ Smith wrote:
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer program to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely before you print them from the comfort of your own home? Got redeye? Well, then, take another shot. Want a bluer sky? Use a filter & adjust the camera. I'm not slamming anyone so, please, don't get upset. I can't afford a photograph program (which means, I should probably buy another laptop), printer & photo paper, not to mention that I don't have a place for any printer or a bunch of photo paper, so it's more economical to take my card to the drug store for processing. Someone, please enlighten me because I'm not seeing the benefit of the expense of a computer program, color printer & photo paper. I'm obviously missing something (which is usually the case)!
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer pr... (
show quote)
The sincere (and simple) answer is it depends how much control you want over the workflow.
I see the photographic process as having three major steps (using film or digital is irrelevant) image capture (recording on a photosensitive medium) preparation for display (post-production), and display (physical presentation). In most cases, the image as capture is manipulated to some degree. Manipulated means the variance of the image as displayed compared to what the eye captures.
Digital photography has the capacity to manipulate the capture in camera or not. Those who want maximum control capture in raw, the image is functionally equivalent to a film negative.
In camera manipulation reduces the variables under control by the photographer to lens selection, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and, in cases of shooting in studio or with a flash, lighting. This assumes the photographer has made an informed choice of camera, i.e., they know the processing characteristics even when shooting raw.
Some photographers want maximum control of all steps. Most are willing to assign responsibility for preparation for display to others, e.g., sending out images for large prints to a vender. However, sending images straight from the camera to Walgreens allows Walgreens to prepare the image for display as well as printing the image.
You seem to be in the camp that focuses all their creative energy on image-capture, i.e., the search for the perfect. Perfect in this instance is the degree to which the captured image matches your vision. Once achieved, you are willing to cede control of your painstakingly realized vision to a machine operating within the algorithmic parameters of the machines programmers.
That said, almost all digital images, even photojournalism, are processed in some manner if only to optimize them for display in a particular medium, e.g., newspaper, magazine, billboard, etc.
The closest process that reduces image manipulation to a minimum is a contact print but even then the initial exposure and chemical processing of the print has variables.
I understand the few extremely negative reactions to posing the question. It is difficult to have to reexamine, and in some instances, defend how we choose to approach photography. Yet, as difficult as it often is, I think it healthy to regularly examine that which we take for granted, our assumptions. It is good to return to beginners mind.
So
thanks for the question.