Originally posted by pacerr Prior to loading film, I considered
'pre-processing' decisions such as film type (brand, ASA/ISO, grain, type of lighting, shots per cassette, etc) and what I'll call the 'Photographer's Intent' for that particular film and equipment use. Intended results may have required changing film types mid-roll for which I often hand-loaded economical 'short rolls' of 8-12 frames.
During actual shooting, a form of '
processing' involved the selection of lenses, optical filters, and lighting (remember flash bulbs?) and shooting position. The choice of aperture and shutter speed used was a form of '
processing' with direct, irreversible effect on each image.
After the shoot, the '
post-processing' began. What film developing fluids to use, at what temperature and duration. What paper to print on with similar decisions. What enlarging and cropping was desired? Was the guest bedroom closet wet-darkroom gonna be needed for the in-laws' visit next week?
Those are all valid points, particularly for B&W negative film and to a lesser extent for colour negatives (since colour couldn't handle quite as much manipulation as B&W at the printing stage without looking un-natural).
But of course, most "serious" colour film photographers shot slides and with slides you really did have to get it right at the moment you pressed the shutter. I usually shot with Kodachrome, so home processing simply wasn't an option, and the only sort of image manipulation I could do was "pre-processing" with filters and lighting at the time of shooting.
With wonderful irony though, nowadays I can DSLR "scan" some of my old Kodachromes that didn't come out quite right at the time and turn them into what I'd always wanted them to be. There's one particular roll of Kodachrome 64 that I accidentally shot at ASA 400, resulting in massive underexposure, but with DSLR scanning I've managed to restore those photos to pretty much what they would have looked like with the proper exposure.
Which brings me to my own personal rules about how much post-processing I'm willing to do. I've got no problem with processing my own shots to overcome the limitations of the gear I was using, so I'm fine with colour correction, and with adjusting tone curves to get the right dynamic range and contrast, and with stitching multiple frames to get a wider angle of view. But I'd draw the line at cloning in a fake sky, or processing a photo shot at noon to look like it was at sunset, because I'd always know that it was a fraud and my self-respect wouldn't allow it.
How much post-processing other photographers feel willing to do without losing their own self-respect is their own business.