Originally posted by dlh I take pictures of things I find interesting because I know other people don't notice or observe things the way I do. Things other people would not see at all unless I show them what I found interesting. Lots of times, the reaction is, "Like, yeah? So? What's up with that?" Other times, it's more like, "OOOoooohhh!!!" Not that I'm particularly good at it, you understand, lots of the folks here are obviously much more skilled and observant than myself. But I think that's where the real art of photography is. Computer graphics is a useful tool, but that's all, by my lights.
Let's be clear, though - altering images both before and after the point of capture has been common-place in photography not just in digital times, but for decades before that in the film world too. It's not limited to "
computer graphics".
Filters, artificial light sources and modifiers, even depth of field and specific lens rendering characteristics have all been used for many, many years to create looks that are
far from what the eye perceives.
The films used were often carefully picked to give certain tonal reproductions, some of them
significantly different to what we see with our own eyes, with (for example) over-saturated colours, deep blacks, colour shifts etc. Why,
any black and white film results in images that look very different to what the photographer sees through the viewfinder. But any half decent black and white photographer would be thinking in black and white when taking photographs, knowing how they want to represent the subject and scene (their artistic vision, if you will).
Next, there's the development process - different chemical compositions and times used to create (sometimes hugely) different end results.
And then there's the enlargement process, with dodging and burning, dust and scratch removal, and corrections for distortion and perspective.
Any or all (but undoubtedly several) of these would have been used in many of the wonderful film photographs you've viewed and enjoyed, not to mention a whole range of other techniques. Post-processing of digital images is simply a duplication and extension of those film processing techniques applied instead to digital images.
At what point in the workflow do we cease to credit the skill of the photographer and the validity of their efforts? The point at which they pressed the shutter button, or the point at which we view their final image, be it in printed or digital form? You describe what you consider to be "
the real art of photography", and it's certainly
one valid opinion, but one among
many. I consider the real art to include the entire workflow from capture through to the final article, with all processing steps in between (whether for film or digital images). My opinion is as valid as - but no more so than - yours. Others will have a range of different opinions too.
None of this really matters, of course, because we're not here to sit in judgement (unless critique is requested, of course). Rather, we can review, appreciate, and form opinions on each photographers work, taking into account our personal preferences. Some we'll like, some we won't. Our individual opinions are as subjective and unique as the photographer's intent
Back when I was in my early teens, and long before I developed an interest in photography, a slightly older friend of mine (he became, and remains, my best friend) used a Zenit SLR and lenses to take some rather nice black and white shots which he developed in his bedroom. Over time, he experimented with different filters, film types, processing methods, enlargement and correction work, and even tried hand-colouring a number of his final images using kits designed specifically for that purpose. I can't say how well his photographs represented the reality of what he saw, but I surely enjoyed his work.
EDIT: I think what your original point boils down to is, you like images to look natural rather than un-natural... even if that natural look involves just as much processing subterfuge (and it often does)
And that's fine. I like that too... but I also like cleverly processed images where the art extends beyond representing the natural scene as we imagine it