Have I been brainwashed by the post- prod hype?

<blockquote>

<p>Fortunately, knowing who Steichen was is not a requirement for being interested in photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that's lucky, because I'd never heard of him until I saw the quote - which I loved by the way, not only for his sentiments, but also because it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same!</p>

<p>I do "claim" to be interested in photography by the way. I've been a professional advertising photographer for over twenty years, on both sides of the Atlantic, I studied photography in London for four years before that and had my first darkroom at age 10. I'm not sure how Steichen failed to come across my radar before this quote, but I don't think that means that the history of photography is a "total void" for me!</p>

<p>Clearly I need to apologize to Mr Steichen and to art historians everywhere.</p>

<p>"Have I been brainwashed by the post- prod hype?" </p>

<p>Yes. </p>

<p>It sounds, Alan, that you have made up your own mind and are firm and content with that approach. I would say Good. And are now sort of 'challenging' the forum respondents to disagree with your opinion and perhaps to justify their disagreement. Not quite so good, IMO only. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am, take my reaction as kindly as possible. (I usually do some PP as routine. Not always. Never feel put upon to do so.)</p>

<p>Steichen's 8x10 print of his "Pond-the moonrise" sold for $2.9 million at auction back in 2006. Pretty good for some guy back in 1904. I continue to believe that he knew something about "photography".</p>

<p>You are the artist photographer, images can come out of the camera perfect all the time, but if you want to do something different to them, do post production, it is just another tool for you to create your image.</p>

<p>The purist will want the perfect image from the camera untouched. Selling photos to consumers, they may not care at all, it is just what the final image looks like that they want. If they like vignetting they won't care that it was done post production, they just want a piece of art to hang on the wall that goes with the color scheme of their room. Others may just like that the photo is B&W and looks old or an old style. Most consumers don't care, they just want what looks good to them.</p>

<p>You as the artist / creator must decide what you want to do, there is no right or wrong, it is just a choice.</p>

<p>I do know every photographer loves it when the image comes out of the camera perfect, no desire or need to do anything.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A thread on this general subject nevers fails to draw some posts about Ansel Adams... as here, in support of post-production. Of course, we all know that it's a technical medium, and that some basic adjustments to contrast and colours might be appropriate. However, I get tired of the name Ansel Adams being carelessly bandied about like this. If you look at the history of photography and of Ansel Adams, he was very much in the school of realism. In fact, along with Weston, he fought quite a battle in favour of it.</p>

<p>What he did in the darkroom was merely to translate what was already on his film to the photographic papers available. I don't think it can be said that he was into photo manipulation.</p>

<p>There are different levels of post-production. Moving a simple slider in Lightroom or whatever is one thing, but have you looked at some of the incredibly complex and esoteric "techniques" many people spend hours on in order to tweak sharpness and other things to the n'th degree?</p>

<p>Times have changed. Technology today captures much more than the eye can see. Viewing the same image on two different monitors produces two different results. I don't know if there is such a thing as an unprocessed image. Digital cameras have so many options in how they capture the image to begin with that there already is much "processing" in every image captured. My wife prefers the "unaltered" image, but I have no idea what that is anymore. It certainly is nothing like it was when I was using film and my own darkroom. Even then, I had options in the contrast level of the paper, how I processed the film, etc.<br>

If you close one eye and then the other you will notice a different color balance between each of your eyes. All images are subjective in nature.<br>

I think the "unprocessed" image is a figment of the imagination. We need to recognize that this is a process of many steps, each of which influences the outcome. How you do that as a photographer is a personal choice. All of the really good photographers I know have completed the vision of the final image in their mind before tripping the shutter. It is the effort to produce that image conception that matters. My view is the closer you get to that preconceived image, the closer you really are to an "unprocessed" image.</p>

<p>I think most people have been brainwashed by the post production hype, 99.9% of them are digital shooters.</p>

<p>As a traditionalist I shoot slides and just scan them with dedicated film scanners. Sometimes retouch a hair (no, I don't have Photoshop, I don't need it and I don't want it!), sometimes a dirt spot on the street. Sometimes I just modify the contrast (not with an image editor) and crop if I think it will serve the photograph. That's it.</p>

<p>BTW, I never sharpen, insert a 'new sky' or perform any other modification.<br>

The image (on my ground glass) is the image (the slide) is the image (the print) - which is achieved considerably easier with film than with digital.</p>