[pacerr]

"I'm old school. I don't believe in post processing of images beyond basic cropping. There's to(sic) much editing now. "

When I see this sentiment I have to recall my own 60-plus years of messing about with photography. In the era prior to digital imagery I employed three phases of 'processing' to produce a single image.

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?

Speaking of cropping, there's also the argument that cropping should be done in-camera. I disagree; cropping should be most efficiently planned for but when is any image composition best dictated by a viewfinder, sensor or negative format (1:1, 2:3, 3:4)?

Imagine telling an artist they must adhere to a specific canvas or frame size! I certainly always planned to crop for composition in the enlarger when using a 6x6 square negative from a TLR. I see many images today that would be enhanced if cropped for better composition than the default format of the camera sensor or a common paper or frame size . . . IMO .

While pleasantly challenging and disciplined, all that 'wet processing' was smelly, time consuming and expensive. Film was a strict learning environment because each step in the process was irreversible and also had an immediate effect on one's wallet.

Digital photography has freed us of most of that time, effort and expense and I welcome it. Yeah, software's expensive, but reasonably long lived. The shooting skills haven't changed but the cost of learning them is nil today. I can explore all of the characteristics of film and development on a shot-by-shot basis with the help of the wonderful tool called instant review with histogram. I lack none of the wet-darkroom tools I've used in any current processing software.

Mistakes are revealed in real time with the opportunity to correct one's errors on the spot (saved that once-in-a-lifetime shot!) rather than hours or days later after an expensive darkroom session. Extensive gear calibration shoots and experimentation with techniques is free and immediately available in the field. Some pros used Polaroid cameras to tune studio lighting before committing to an 8x10 film negative. (Don' need no $386 digital light meter, dude -- I got's me an instant histogram to chimp with!)

ND and POL filters are optical effects that can't be digitally accomplished and we can add perspective control to that tool box without a compound shift lens - hey, how many of us have one of those in the day-bag?

If nothing else, I now have a few T-shirts an' jeans that don't have hypo stains on 'em and digital image 'shoe-boxes' are the size of small lens caps!

[pschlute]

Digital post-processing is as much part of photography as it was when folk were doing it with dodging and burning in the darkroom 100 years ago

[jatrax]

"I'm old school. I don't believe in post processing of images beyond basic cropping.

Yeah. That drives me nuts. Especially when they look down their nose at you and say they "get it right in camera". As if I don't "get it right" somehow. Do they think I walk around taking lousy pictures so I can spend hours on the computer 'fixing' them?

Personally I think you need to do the absolute best you can in the field, but that just supplies the raw material for the artist part of you to work on.

[pschlute]

Personally I think you need to do the absolute best you can in the field, but that just supplies the raw material for the artist part of you to work on.

Too right. Anyone who complains about PP these days is too shy to admit they cant work a computer

[robgski]

Personally I think you need to do the absolute best you can in the field, but that just supplies the raw material for the artist part of you to work on.

I think most photographers who started with film cameras have developed that habit out of necessity, unless one had the money, time, and access to the equipment, the results of time spent photographing subjects were heavily determined by doing everything appropriately from films choice to settings to composition BEFORE opening the shutter. (Note to self, start a phot session with the idea that I only have 12, 24, or 36 chances to get all the images I want to capture)

Anyone who complains about PP these days is too shy to admit they cant work a computer

Also a very valid supposition, at least in my case, I crop freely in post, but other than very small corrections to exposure or saturation, or conversion to BW (love those colored filter conversion options) my post processing is limited by my lack of proficiency with the tools.

[AggieDad]

Speaking of cropping, there's also the argument that cropping should be done in-camera. I disagree; cropping should be most efficiently planned for but when is any image composition best dictated by a viewfinder, sensor or negative format (1:1, 2:3, 3:4)?

Imagine telling an artist they must adhere to a specific canvas or frame size! I certainly always planned to crop for composition in the enlarger when using a 6x6 square negative from a TLR. I see many images today that would be enhanced if cropped for better composition than the default format of the camera sensor or a common paper or frame size . . . IMO .

I couldn't agree with you more. Cropping is a big part of finishing for me. Even when I am taking the photo I am already cropping in my mind – thinking in terms of a square image, or a 16 x 9, or a ...

Don

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Too right. Anyone who complains about PP these days is too shy to admit they cant work a computer

I think that post-processing is plain forgery. I do not mind adjusting the over- or underexposure. You could do that in the film era as well. You could even adjust the colour if necessary (remember the time that my photoshop told me that they had to send the pictures back, they showed me that the colour adjustment was not right). But extensive post-processing is forgery, it is not that they are shy to admit that they do not know how to work a computer (if they work at all), but that it does not feel right to do so.

[c.a.m]

"I'm old school. I don't believe in post processing of images beyond basic cropping. There's to(sic) much editing now. "

The quote in the OP might reflect an individual's personal approach to photography, and that's fine. Some folks put a lot of time and effort towards post-processing; others do a modest amount; while some are happy with out-of-camera JPG images. Photographic creativity spans many styles. I'd say all of these personal approaches are valid.

Recent Pentax cameras have a range of in-camera processing options, including Ricoh Imaging's 'Custom Image' approach, which allows one to adjust an image's 'finishing touch' without having to rely on potentially-complicated post-processing packages.

Personally, I tend to process my RAW files in RawTherapee and finish them in Affinity Photo, using a gentle processing hand. I'm also starting to explore the in-camera Custom Image settings.

- Craig

[StiffLegged]

I used to develop and print my own B&W and thoroughly enjoyed it; the variations in brewing, paper grades, dodging and burning, gloss versus other paper finishes or bromide paper versus chlorobromide. I vividly remember a good friend being shown dodging for the first time exclaiming “that’s cheating!!” and me laughing at him. It’s always been part of the process unless you shot transparencies like Kodachrome.

[gatorguy]

I think that post-processing is plain forgery. I do not mind adjusting the over- or underexposure. You could do that in the film era as well. You could even adjust the colour if necessary (remember the time that my photoshop told me that they had to send the pictures back, they showed me that the colour adjustment was not right). But extensive post-processing is forgery, it is not that they are shy to admit that they do not know how to work a computer (if they work at all), but that it does not feel right to do so.

There's a world of difference between "extensive" and processing that simply improves on what the camera could capture. Is cropping forgery? Is pulling detail from the shadows forgery? Is brushing away a power line behind your subject forgery? Is deleting a blemish from a face forgery?

Even then there are times when I've very purposefully taken artistic license with a particular capture and made extensive changes to the original. To tag it as a forgery is not being cognizant of an opportunity to expand on an idea, particularly one you had planned in advance.

Art.

[c.a.m]

But extensive post-processing is forgery,

Interesting thought. To me, "forgery" suggests the act of making or producing a copy of something authentic -- perhaps making a copy of a visualized scene in the case of photography. I think I understand the intent of the comment.

So, that raises the question of what is authentic photography or image making? If 'over-processing' (my term) is over the top, then at what point does the forgery start?

I would say that in this context, if I have understood the viewpoint, all photography is forgery. Although cameras can capture a scene or subject with a high degree of realism, the resulting images rarely -- if ever -- have complete accuracy or authenticity in their colours, lightness, dynamic range, etc.

For instance, what is colour accuracy? Is a final image accurate (authentic) if it has recorded or produced the same colours that the photographer's eyes and brain saw? Or must the image reproduce the exact technical coloration of the subject, in terms of faithful spectral wavelengths?

If a photographer visualizes a scene to have bold colours and high contrast, and processes their image to represent their impression, does that approach constitute a forgery?

What is real? What is fake? Does it matter?

- Craig

[jatrax]

I think that post-processing is plain forgery.

How can my vision of what I want to show my buyers be a 'forgery'? My art is by definition my vision.

You could do that in the film era as well.

So its OK to make a 'forgery' using the tools that were used 30 years ago but not OK to use new tools? Sorry that makes no sense.

Have you ever read "The Print" by Ansel Adams? His vision of an image changed over time, and he was committed to using post processing to take the raw image and develop it into what his vision was.

[pschlute]

I think that post-processing is plain forgery. I do not mind adjusting the over- or underexposure. You could do that in the film era as well. You could even adjust the colour if necessary (remember the time that my photoshop told me that they had to send the pictures back, they showed me that the colour adjustment was not right). But extensive post-processing is forgery, it is not that they are shy to admit that they do not know how to work a computer (if they work at all), but that it does not feel right to do so.

Nonsense. Did you know that Ansel Adams would spend a whole day in the darkroom selectively dodging and burning one print ? He would have loved today's Photoshop and similar offerings.

Or would you call him a forger ?

---------- Post added 03-29-21 at 12:43 AM ----------

would say that in this context, if I have understood the viewpoint, all photography is forgery. Although cameras can capture a scene or subject with a high degree of realism, the resulting images rarely -- if ever -- have complete accuracy or authenticity in their colours, lightness, dynamic range, etc.

For instance, what is colour accuracy? Is a final image accurate (authentic) if it has recorded or produced the same colours that the photographer's eyes and brain saw? Or must the image reproduce the exact technical coloration of the subject, in terms of faithful spectral wavelengths?

So true. Different cameras produce different colours. None of them are "accurate", if accuracy means what the eye saw.

The dynamic range in a digital image bears no resemblance to what the eye/brain sees when looking at the same scene.

The notion of "accuracy" or "true colours" is a fallacy in photography. It has always been an artistic medium.

[pacerr]

Intent -- the legitimacy of 'processing' is dependent upon one's intent.

ALL choices, both before and after shutter release, constitute 'processing'. But what's the Photographer's Intent'?

To exactly replicate the image as an instant in time?

To exactly replicate the image dependent only upon the limits of a specific sensor?

To produce the artists vision of that instant as inspiration?

To produce a customer's or viewer's desired vision of a subject?

To produce a photo-shopped forgery or false image for improper gain?

Is not a decision as to the choice of film type or in-camera JPG adjustments the equivalent of a choice of cropping, matting and framing as a form of manipulative processing?

Personal limits of the extent of manipulating the choice(s) of equipment and processes are simply personal choices; not the breaking of absolute rules.

Perhaps shooting in B&W, IR, with a POL filter should be outlawed as a corrupt form of manipulating reality . . . but how would you accommodate someone that's 'color blind'?

Cropping for composition's sake is perhaps the very least of 'sins'. Heaven forbid we should ever crop to imitate a telephoto lens.

[AggieDad]

I think that post-processing is plain forgery. I do not mind adjusting the over- or underexposure. You could do that in the film era as well. You could even adjust the colour if necessary (remember the time that my photoshop told me that they had to send the pictures back, they showed me that the colour adjustment was not right). But extensive post-processing is forgery, it is not that they are shy to admit that they do not know how to work a computer (if they work at all), but that it does not feel right to do so.

So you never create any monochrome images – save a JPEG from your camera?