as opposed to letting the camera and software do it for you?

This question was inspired by reading an article and associated advertisement earlier today. It seems there are a lot of presets available for LR as well as other processing software. As I read through this article and the use of various plugins, add ons, and presets, I wondered how many of this group aspire to take matters into their own hands, learn various aspects of photography, and make the initial adjustments to camera, with a plan of processing in mind (some refer to this as pre-visualization)?

Or, how many of you twiddle a few knobs and then push a few buttons until an "Oh Wow, look what I just did" moment occurs?

I guess the deeper issue is, are you a camera operator or a photographer?
--Bob

Rong...., photography was given an acknowledgment as to ending our involvement in Viet Nam. The photographs, Nick Ut's for instance, brought the war to the American home. The American public became alarmed at the atrocities and began to voice sentiments contrary to supporting the war. Photography and videos along with newscasts were given credit for hastening the end of that conflict.

The invasion of Kuwait and subsequent invasion of Iraq was probably the most journalistically covered of all of the modern conflicts. The issues with Afghanistan seem to have taken, not only the back burner but put on a stove in another room. We seem to need reminding that we still have troops in harms way there. Photography contributes, but only when it's placed in front of the public. When was the last large news coverage of anything happening in Afghanistan?

I think photography would contribute a lot, but it must be seen to have that effect.
--Bob

I did a (free) photo shoot for my Sis-n-law, husband & their dog over the summer in locations they choose around a farm, all outdoors and they turned out good. The couple loved them and had some even done on canvas and used others on Christmas cards this year. My editing consisted of lighting and cropping and very minor touch up on a face pic here and I was done.

A month later the same couple goes with his family to a nice lake and his parents hired a well known lady to do a photo session. The pics were stunning, and not cheap I’m sure but the editing was so much it didn’t even look like the people I know. Skin was perfect in every way. In one pic she even changed the color of everyone’s shirt to the same color. As great as the pics looked it just wasn’t my style even if I was that great on PS.

I follow a Photographer on FB who post some incredible pics and ask once if he would post the original, straight from the camera pic of a certain picture but he wouldn’t for nothing. So what do you guys and gals do to your pics that your doing for others be it free or for money?

I got an offer for a 4x5 view camera and enlarger from a friend who offered to give them to me. I spent many hours in a darkroom in my youth, and while setting one up is appealing at a certain level, just developing the negs, and then scanning and printing would be far easier. I'm fairly accomplished with Lightroom and PS, so that is the way I'm leaning. Also, setting up a darkroom would be difficult in my house.

Anyone have any experience with scanning large format negs with a high-resolution scanner, and then printing? If so, what equipment do you recommend? thx

When you get right down to the basics of photography, nothing has changed all that much. Once you cut through all the high tech automation, unnecessary bells and whistles, advertising hype and techno-babble there are only three controls of any significance in every adjustable camera and lens; aperture, shutter speed and focus. If the “photographer” is really a photographer and fully understands and MASTERS the multiple and interrelated functions of theses three adjustments, he or she can produce, create and enable a myriad of effects, moods, and images only limited by one's imagination. Many great and even iconic images were made with simple decent gear. Many photography enthusiasts are just too preoccupied with gear and would do better (photographically) to concentrate on simplicity and really learning their craft.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with today's high tech automated equipment. It just makes things more convenient at times. The savvy photographer knows how to maximize the usage of this automation by manipulating it to their own requirements or totally bypassing theses programs and adjusting things manually.

There is no automation to replace artistry. Elements such as composition, aesthetics, “seeing” and applying the dynamic of light are all talents, perhaps inborn traits, however, even those who are fortunate enough to posses theses attributes still need to develop theses talents and learn the craftsmanship and technology.

I have spent many decades in the film era and admittedly, I do miss certain aspects of the craftsmanship. There is little use, however, in pining for the good old days, perhaps, in retrospect they were old but not all that “good”. Besides, how can one revert to the film era when most of the film, fine papers and chemistry are no longer in production. One would spend more time trying to acquire whatever is still around, mixing scratch chemistry and basically living in the past, than shooting and creating images.

All of the camera handling and image management of film cameras can be related to digital gear and all of the aesthetics of analog darkroom work can be translated to post processing and editing.

There is still no technology to replace patience and hard work.