Does anyone here refuse to post process?

[Russinating]

a good photographer does not need "aids"

I'm sorry... so I'm like half way through skim-reading (ish) this topic and spotted this classic. Saving it for later and I'll update this post .

Ok so I'm doing skim-reading. Haven't read every post word for word as it seems the same points are being regurgitated over and over.

It'd be interesting to know how many of the anti-PP people here have shot on and developed their own film. A very low percentage I'd imagine. Even if you shoot on film and scan your own negatives, that still doesn't count - the way they were developed in the lab you sent them off to has already altered the exposure and contrast (although not to a huge degree) by the time you get your hands on them. This is post-processing - no argument. Those who think the "great" B&W photographers of the past did not do PP, you're naive. It's impossible not to in one way or another, purposefully or not.

I'd just like to quote this from Wikipedia:

The word "photograph" was coined in 1839 by Sir John Herschel and is based on the Greek φῶς (phos) "light" and γραφή (graphê) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".

My lecturer always banged on about this subject and I vividly have the term "painting with light" in my head. It's possible also a book I studied.

So, painting with light. That sways the whole activity more over to art territory (painting), of which photography is anyway. Now, however you perceive art, and however you appreciate it - whether it's the skill and process the artist took to get to the final idea, the artists idea in the first place, or simply the aesthetic end result - you can't call photography post-processing "cheating".

If you appreciate the skill and process, the PP is as much of a skill as the taking of the photo.
If you appreciated the idea, the PP is as much of a part of that than anything else.
If you just like the aesthetic end result... well... you get the idea.

Personally I'm attracted to the aesthetics. I like photos/images/paintings/structures that look good, and my aim is make my photos "look good", by whatever means possible.

Just because the tools have changed and the way in which the post-processing is done over the decades, using Photoshop to import a RAW is no more cheating or false than simply developing a negative.

IMO

 

[Adrianr]

<mega snip>

A good post, but in your skim reading you obviously missed posts #132 and #134