This is my photo post of the day, but I wanted to also pose a question.

Would you consider non-edited imaging a quality of desirable photography?

I know this might seem like a "duh, of course" question to respond to, but I have seen so many pro's to other people's photo edits. Yet I feel that the raw skill of old school photography relied on what was captured on the release, so why wouldn't we?

Maybe the thought is too puritan, but I would love to hear your point of view whether or not you share the same ideal. Thanks as always for viewing!

[françois]

In my case, I say, always try to capture the best image straight out of camera... It is still quite a skill to master even with digital technology.
But you shouldn't smother your creative impulse either by focusing too much on the ideal photograph, or the ideal technique...
Post-processing is also a skill that needs to be honed to be effective!
In my mind, the goal is to achieve a compelling image that will have the "wow" effect. But it's all about sharing in the end! whether you have an ultimate aim or not, depends on what
kind of person you are... Enjoy the process of seeing! study the light! and just have fun with it!

Just my bit anyway...

[Heinrich Lohmann]

This is my photo post of the day, but I wanted to also pose a question.

Would you consider non-edited imaging a quality of desirable photography?

I know this might seem like a "duh, of course" question to respond to, but I have seen so many pro's to other people's photo edits. Yet I feel that the raw skill of old school photography relied on what was captured on the release, so why wouldn't we?

Maybe the thought is too puritan, but I would love to hear your point of view whether or not you share the same ideal. Thanks as always for viewing!

Haute, I have been at this for just about 70 years and while one always tries to get the best "negative" as possible, PP has always been part of the process. In the early 1950th I worked for a studio that only used negatives 4x5 up to 8x10. A good negative retouch person made more money than the photographer, if the photographer was skilled in both he had it made. After that it was up to the Lab technician to do the printing. There were many custom Labs, especially after color film became the standard that would spend considerable time with the photographer to make sure to get in the final print just what the photographer had in mind.

What I am trying to tell you is that the negative (Raw file) is just the beginning of a process and that the only thing that matters is the final outcome. This idea-straight out of camera- would have laughed at in film days, because it would just not have been possible. In todays digital it is somewhat easier but still, the raw file is just the beginning of a process..

[DW58]

I agree completely with Heinrich. Back in the stone age when film was first introduced people were manipulating their images as much as they could when they needed to. For B&W there are ways to alter the contrast of your images when developing your film. When printing you can choose the grade of paper used depending on how much contrast you want. There are also filters available for your enlarger to alter the image. Move the enlarger head up or down and or move the easel to achieve the crop and composition you want. Then there is also burning and dodging. When using a color enlarger you can play with the cyan, magenta and yellow. Altering a photographic image "back in the day" was a lot more time consuming but photographers still used all the tools of manipulation available to them. Many photographers today spend hard earned money on editing software. They'd be foolish not to use it. My two cents.

[Haute Wada]

Valuable input and insight to the history of the whole process considered in Photographic success. Thanks you guys!