Real photographers don't do this

[Mousetoescamper]

If you've ever felt snubbed or intimidated by the gatekeepers of photographic esoterica, you might enjoy viewing this 23-minute video. Co-host Chelsea Northrup says, "A real photographer takes photos with intention," and I couldn't agree more. Whether you're using a $2.7 million 1923 Leica 0-series, a smartphone or the Kodak Instamatic you got for your birthday in 1968, if your photos are taken with attention and intention, you're a real photographer. A photo that's taken using automatic settings and is creatively post-processed or--gasp!--Photoshopped is just as "real" as a photo taken using manual settings with no post-processing. Purists' priggish notions can suck the fun out of photography, and if it isn't fun, what's the point.

[Major Nikon]

1. Professional photography has always embraced technology

Post processing was being extensively accomplished long before digital photography was a thing. Most of the digital post processing tools are simply mimicking the older film post processing techniques. Pretty much all of the auto functions that are commonplace in just about any new camera originated with professional cameras.

That being said there is still plenty of use for all manual modes of camera operation. There's also something to be said for getting a great image with minimal post processing. That doesn't mean there isn't plenty of creative space for post processing, but generally speaking a bad image isn't going to be made better with a lot of post. The end result is still going to be a bad image.

The other side of it is there's all sorts of things that go into making good images which transcend technical knowledge of the camera and media. People are able to take great images with cell phone cameras and very little in depth knowledge of photography.

[Mousetoescamper]

2. Yes, and as noted in the video, Ansel Adams himself would embrace our latest imaging technology

To be clear, I wasn't saying that manual modes are obsolete. I always use manual for shots of the moon and Milky Way (among other subjects) and often use manual focus for closeups and perched birds. In some cases my hand is much quicker and more accurate than autofocus.

Some photos can't be salvaged with post processing, but popular public opinion indicates that a slightly out-of-focus photo of a cute kitten will always trump a stunningly-crisp shot of vultures devouring carrion. Precision and unambiguity are crucial to the photography used in science, medicine and engineering. But if we're considering photography as an art, there is no objective measure for distinguishing good from bad. It’s all subjective; a matter of personal opinion and taste.

What is called colorization seems to be one of the photo purists’ chief complaints. I recently read a comment here suggesting that photographers are dishonest if their photos’ colors don't precisely match the image that struck their camera's sensor. That’s a subjective moral judgement of photographers doing what all artists do--they manipulate materials to create something representing their uniquely individual view of the world. Following the commenter’s moral judgement, we might have to say that Van Gogh was a dishonest painter whose Starry Night is a false representation of the night sky.

Yours is the kind of thoughtful response I hoped to prompt with a provocative post. Thank you.

[Major Nikon]

3. I'm not a big fan of colorized photos

If you are colorizing your own images for creative effect, then more power to you. I just don’t think any sort of post processing outside of damage control is appropriate for historical photos and video. I just feel it takes away from the original artists’ work rather than adding to it.

As far as the colors the camera captured goes, it’s never a direct correlation and is instead what the camera decided to assign a certain hue. There really is no such thing to 100% fidelity when it comes to color. This was just as true in the film world as it is in the digital one.

[Mousetoescamper]

4. I'm not referring to the colorization of B&W films and photos. Neither am I a fan of that practice.

I recall Ted Turner's obtaining the rights to Citizen Kane and colorizing the film back in the late '80s. I don't think it was ever released, but it was a terrible idea. Maybe Turner thought he could encourage more young people to watch and buy his videos of classic movies if they were colorized.

The owner of the camera shop where i used to take my color film for processing adjusted the hues to my liking. Sending the film off to a commercial processor was always hit or miss. I've got thousands of film prints, negatives and slides that I'd like to digitize. Most were taken during the years when i was frequently traveling to and camping in national and state parks and forests.