russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

You obviously need to do a little reading. You just might be shocked at what Ansel Adams did. I have this sneaky suspicion that Muench also knows quite a bit about post-processing, particularly in the darkroom with dodging and burning, as well as using different filters, chemicals, and papers.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

you may call dodging and burning "post processing" but that misses the point. on a black and white negative, if the detail is not there, then there is nothing to be done. while Ansel loved certain gadgets (drying down test prints in his microwave oven), he would not have turned focusing, metering, composing over to electronic devices, which would tell him what to do.
he knew what to do. he also knew what he wanted before he released the shutter for exposure. the most complex negative was his "moonrise over hernandez, mexico", which required a lot of dodging and burning; but here's the point of the exercise, all that was dodged and burned was already present on the negative.

the reason digital image makers use colour is it looks pretty. that and reliance on inferior zoom lenses. and that's about it. shadow, detail, available dark, zone metering are all best left to real photographers using black and white film and prime lenses.

digital image makers hate weight and size. Ansel always believed the best camera was the heaviest available. hence, in his later years, when downsizing, he went to hasselblad rather than something in miniature format (35mm). would he be using digital today, no. for the simple reason the film print is superior to a digital print. and for Ansel, the print was the final arbiter of his effort, not the television screen.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

My two penn'orth:

1) The better the original image, the better the final result, with or without PP.
2) No original image is so good that it can't be improved by PP.
3) If you can tell that PP has been done, there's been too much PP!

Personally, the closer I can get to what I think I saw, the better, and if that just means a hint of sharpening, better still. If someone likes an image, and wants me to adjust it to their personal taste, that's absolutely fine too.

Tony.mustang

Hi I have brought this matter many times and most readers support pp . As far as I am concerned people are becoming better pp than learning photography.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

I seriously doubt that you have ever seen an Ansel print that he hadn't used most all the PP tools available at that time. In fact I read an article, maybe by his daughter (?), that only perhaps 10% of his photos ever got published in his lifetime; the rest were either destroyed by him for filed away as "never to been seen or released".

Perhaps 90% of the photos you see here have also had some PP, the difference being that they are posted to ask a question or comparison with an "adjusted" :wink: version. There is nothing sacred about an 'a just out of the the camera' print, so if it needs correction, why not.

To support your contention just a "wee bit", I don't like stuff that has been "HDR'd" to the point where it looks more like a garish painting than a photo.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

He likely would have used large format today so long he could carry it. Most digital cameras lack the movements of view cameras. Also, non come near in terms of resolution and dynamic range.

Surprised no one has mentioned Lone Pine where the negative was edited to remove the LP from the hillside. It had been put there by high school students. I am friends with Alan Ross, one of Adams assistants. He still prints from Adams negative for the Ansel Adams gallery Yosemite Collection. When I was out of his house for a workshop I got to see an Adams negative as well as many prints up close. Ross told me he is the one who retouched the negative for Lone Pine. Here is an article on the image.

http://focusonphotography.blogspot.com/2008/07/ansel-adams-and-lone-pine-photograph.html

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

My perspective spans 46 years of serious photography. I have used the best of film processes, and the best of digital processes, both as a photographer and a lab manager. I feel so passionate about digital that I abandoned film in 2005.

Post-Processing is a very powerful tool for improving images. The tools in Lightroom and Photoshop and similar applications are FAR more powerful than anything film photographers ever had in the darkroom. The precision and range of control, the speed of production, and the consistency of output quality are all better. The range of options for using bits instead of atoms is far greater as well.

I think Ansel would be PROUD to use, and INTRIGUED by, today's digital workflows. He would certainly have liked the weight savings, environmental safety, speed, and relative ease of working with digital processes, in addition to the enormous range of flexibility.

David Muench says this on his web page: "I was lucky. I entered the field of landscape photography when it was still new. Yet, it remains new for me. I’ve put away—temporarily—my Linhof Technika (4x5), Leicaflex (35mm) and Canon (35 mm) film cameras and, since 2007, have made the leap to a slow learning curve with digital photography. I am excited by the freedom I am finding in digital cameras, as I continue my personal journey in the American Landscape..."

FREEDOM. That's what digital photography at the highest levels feels like. You might be chained to a chair in front of a computer if you let yourself be, but on the other hand, when you want or need to manipulate your images, you can. How much is enough or too much is up to you.

Meives Loc: FORT LAUDERDALE

[quote=AZ Dog]You know of course that nobody did more post processing the Ansel Adams. He spent hours touching up his pictures. I clean up 100% of my pictures that I want to share with people. I don't believe you can tell what I did. I may crop, level horizon, delete an annoying branch. I am not afraid to speak up and if you think someone ruined a picture, I would tell them so. Pushing to color too far is bad. Most of us agree on quality. You don't get extra credit points for a "pure" picture. David

Blasthoff Loc: Life halved NY and IN

Linda, as one who studied Adams "Zone System" of photography, I think you may not have a true understanding of the method. Hence, I have to disagree with your statement almost to the opposite. Yes, it's true Adams utilized darkroom techniques. However, at the "core" of the Zone System was mastery of understanding a films tonal range and sensitivity as it actually tests in camera, (ignoring what is printed on the box) and it's latitude of expansion and contraction of tonal range with development controls. To make this long story as short as possible I'll just suffice it to say that "in camera" exposure control is pivotal and key in having control of all other factors.

I did not mean to stray from the original posters question about Post Processing. Yes, as he points out, many examples of PP are quite often "overdone" or vain attempts at correcting mistakes. What's becoming more common are mistakes made using what are really "graphic manipulations" of photographs using tools that have somehow now "slipped into" into photo editing software. In fact, the lines between photo "correction" and photo "editing" have become much too blurred.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The irony of post-production is that the better job you do at the camera, the MORE LATITUDE you have to improve the image at the computer. It's all about lighting, interpreting the scene, and exposure... just as it always has been.

Blasthoff Loc: Life halved NY and IN

Exactly, and that is well put.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

This is absolutely correct. I work at a museum printing old negatives and making copy negatives and prints for archiving. If I start out with a bad negative or print then the result no matter how much work I do is still a disappointment to me.

A bad starting point, negative/ file, can seldom be saved by post processing. Even if you manage to do what would have taken a short time to fix in camera will take longer to fix in processing.

TheDman Loc: USA

I don't agree to that. If an image is great, nobody cares how it was created.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Only the person who created it. Some favor cameras, others computers.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Like I said earlier. Audiences rarely care how something was made. Only people interested in or working in the medium care.