RustyBug Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
+1 @ Almass.
I used to be the extreme "purist" that if it didn't happen "in camera" ... well, that was my basis for exclaiming that Ansel Adams ... "He Cheats !!!" upon learning of how he manipulated in the darkroom.
I shot chromes to have a "standardized" processing and it presented me with a "what ya shot, was what ya got" approach @ very "in camera" oriented which places tremendous emphasis on the photographer's acceptance to the film profile being used and it's inherent characteristics and / or limitations. It also kept the computer or lab tech from imparting THEIR INFLUENCE on the direction for the image ... essentially leaving the only VARIABLE to the "in camera" aspect @ my decision making.
Decades later ... I came to realize the significance that post-production plays relative to the capture being but ONE piece of the overall process. The fact that I CHOSE to relegate myself to STANDARDIZED process so I could control the variable, did not mitigate the fact that there was still a production @ capture AND a post-production processing.
This is unchanged. What has RADICALLY changed, is the ease at which we can adjust our post-processing to suit our individual tastes, profiles and goals for a given image. We are no longer relegated to standard processing or a dependency upon others in order to retain control of ALL VARIABLES in the entire process.
Light>Lens>Sensor (Film)>Processing>Display (Screen / Print). The recording of the light through the lens onto our capture media (sensor or film) is NOT the completed process. Whether we entrust the continuation of the processing to the OEM camera mfr, a third part or we perform the processing ourselves ... the processing still MUST be performed in order to yield a final product. How standardized, dynamic or mundane, global or selective or creative that processing is rendered is a matter of choice.
Those who cry foul @ "Cheating" (self included @ my youth) are showing their limited view and understanding of the processes (standard or otherwise) and the objective for the image @ A) I did this with self-imposed limitations, B) I'm entrusting this to criteria established by others or C) I did this with all available utility.
It's your image, your message, your call ... you can go with Ekatchrome, Kodachrome, or FujiChrome and use standard processing. Or you can hook up with a lab tech and do custom lab work to present your image as you desire it to be, or you can do it yourself in the darkroom.
NOTHING has changed ... we still have capture & post-capture processing required to yield a finished product. Some folks want to have a "hands off" approach to the processing (yet, it still MUST be done to some degree by someone, somewhere along the way), while others desire a much greater "hands on" refinement of control for their vision. Neither is inherently wrong, but some are much better suited for "Hands Off" because they haven't yet developed good control over "hands on" (and it shows). Others have spent the time, effort and diligence necessary to develop a good command and control of their image processing (still working on my personal development) and it also shows when they have developed a mastery thereof (my objective to strive toward @ someday I hope to get there).
Again, your image, your message, your call ... but SOMEBODY is doing the PP in all images. Whether or not it is you or the OEM algorithm camera profile(s), well, that's your call also.
P.S. I guess I should go read the article now.
|