How Far? or Ansel Adams, Bum

I've read several articles recently postulating Ansel Adams' genius was in the lab as a chemist and so doesn't qualify as art. That the amount of post processing involved in his work took him too far out of the realm of what we think of as photography.

Something like that. I don't buy most of it.

Here's one, "Ansel Adams couldn't shoot his way out of a paper bag"

It does bring up a valid point, though. I think most of us would agree, maybe, that there is a post-processing line that can be crossed. A point where it's no longer just an image created with light.

I'm brand new at this. I been playing with Photoshop for a couple of months now and I'm kind of, just a tiny little bit, getting the hang of it. I can kind of see where you could go with this if you wanted to.

I'm certain this has been discussed here, but I haven't looked for it. I'm concerned that factions have been formed and I'm not sure I want to jump in the middle of that.

Is there any reading I could do to get an overview of the arguments about how far to take post processing?

Quoting myself from a recent blogpost:

"There are some people who suggest that anyone who uses Photoshop (or equivalent) to process their photos is cheating in some way. What you can't forget though is that the jpeg straight out of the camera has already been processed - by the camera. If you compare a RAW photo OOC with the corresponding jpeg (if you shoot this way), the former will look drab, maybe a bit skewed and with colours which don't really match the original. This is because every camera has a built-in RAW processor which interprets the RAW based on pre-ordained settings, pre-ordained either by the camera on its own or by certain criteria that you have determined.

Saying then that any post-processing is cheating is akin to saying that anyone who bakes a cake from scratch rather than using a pre-assembled baking mix is cheating. Actually, all that you're doing is giving away some of the creative control in the process to the camera. I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of people who are strongly anti-processing are simply baffled by the process and think that it's unfair that others can do it.

But how much is too much? Most of the photographers that I follow essentially use the same principle when it comes to post-processing. Their aim with a photo is to convey to the viewer the impression they had when they viewed the scene. I like this principle, it gives both leeway and limits. It allows correction and enhancement but veers away from embelishment.

There is a certain legitimacy to this approach; as good as modern cameras are, they still don't have the dynamic range of the human eye; the eye is still able to perceive a greater difference between the brightest part of a scene and the darkest significantly beyond the ability of any present camera.

Of course at the end of the day this can only ever be a philosophical question, a question of style or preference or choice, one of artistic licence, but it's never a moral issue as some would seem to suggest. If you enter a photo into a competition which includes in its conditions that no composite images are permitted but submit just such a photo, then the moral issue is not how much digital manipulation has occurred, but whether or not you misrepresented your photograph, stating that it complied with the rules when it did not."

I don't know how this applies, but I read recently that Dom Pérignon, the monk, made liberal use of staking his vines according to observations and calculations and that he had his bottles turned an eighth of a turn every ... so often ... on a strict schedule. Did that diminish from his art?

There is, of course, a huge range of views on this. Michael encapsulates well a similar view to Galen Rowell: one of the latter's books may be worth a look. An interesting read arguing for some (but not too much!) departure from reality is given in More than a Rock by Guy Tal. And for a principled and controlled, but more extreme, departure from reality (whatever that is) look at Bruce Percy's website.

Ansel Adams was a technical master. You only have to read The Camera, Negative and Print to understand that. However in the introduction to his first book - even before the page numbers start, he's talking about visualisation and how all the technique in the world doesn't matter if your photo is badly visualised. I believe he used all the tools he had to make the photos look how he wanted.

And that's the key for me. If a photographer uses all the skills they have to make the image they see in their mind's eye, I don't care how much/little PP they use. The problem is determining the difference between someone who's used Photoshop to make a pre-visualised masterpiece, or used it to polish a turd.

So whether it's Peter Lindbergh or Peter Lik, ultimately you have to make the decision about what you like.

Or of course it could just be clickbait.

I’m not sure if I’ve missed the point or if the author of the article has and it’s a click bait article.

A black and white negative will (nearly) always be flat and lifeless, and is the starting point for further work. That will always be a re-interpretation of what started as a colour scene. Adams was an expert in not only seeing the potential in the scene but also using the tools of the darkroom in bringing his vision to reality. It was a holistic approach. That’s not to say his reputation went before him of course, and he helped create a movement and a genre of photography. Others were as accomplished as him but he got there first and became best known due to his gallery and other efforts.

In the same way today that there are some average photographers who have fantastic post-processing skills, there are / were some excellent darkroom workers who could produce some technically excellent prints but didn’t have the vision in the field to ‘see’ a great image. Whether Adams could ‘see’ the image is maybe a moot point, but it’s fair to say that he was pretty good!

Like I say though, I may have complete missed the point, so happy to have the flaws in my argument pointed out.

Kaltenberg Mike said:

Saying then that any post-processing is cheating is akin to saying that anyone who bakes a cake from scratch rather than using a pre-assembled baking mix is cheating. Actually, all that you're doing is giving away some of the creative control in the process to the camera. I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of people who are strongly anti-processing are simply baffled by the process and think that it's unfair that others can do it.

Click to expand...

I think this paragraph makes it very clear and easy to understand but rather than say that we're giving away control to the camera I'd agree with what David Bailey (I think it was him) once said and it was along the lines of giving up control to some technician at Canon.

drsilver said:

It does bring up a valid point, though. I think most of us would agree, maybe, that there is a post-processing line that can be crossed. A point where it's no longer just an image created with light.

Click to expand...

For me there are 3 points that are commonly reached where I stop thinking of the image as a classic photograph:

1) Where the processing makes the resolution and pixels disappear to create 'painting' effects.
2) Where all or part of the image is computer-generated graphics created in a drawing program
3) Where elements are pasted together that are deliberately mis-matched to create a digital scrap book effect.

I'm very happy for cloning, layers and very considerable processing in order to create a useful final image. I dislike obvious HDR and excessive use of clarity to create smudgy, grimey images, but they're still photos until they start to look like the condition described in 1).

Kaltenberg Mike said:

I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of people who are strongly anti-processing are simply baffled by the process and think that it's unfair that others can do it.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Henri Cartier-Bresson didn't make his own prints, and I have definitely read that Martin Parr has minions who process his digital files. Perhaps it's not a case of being baffled but their interest in photography is seeing pictures in the world around them and framing them with a camera rather than doing the less important work of processing? Of course, taking that to the extreme you end up like Garry Winogrand with thousands of undeveloped rolls of film.

There is never one 'right' way to turn a negative or digital file into a viewable image. Ansel Adams printed his own pictures differently over time. So you might as well let some processing monkey do it for you while you go about making pore pictures!

Outside of documentary work (including news etc), I don't think there are any rules, or artificially-placed lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Rather than trying to conjure up pre-thought packaged notions of what's allowable and what isn't, it's more sensible to look at the image itself - whether it works or not, and what its meaning is. All process is subservient to that.

If an image has significant meaning, the mechanics of how it was arrived are of secondary concern.

drsilver said:

It does bring up a valid point, though. I think most of us would agree, maybe, that there is a post-processing line that can be crossed. A point where it's no longer just an image created with light.

I'm brand new at this. I been playing with Photoshop for a couple of months now and I'm kind of, just a tiny little bit, getting the hang of it. I can kind of see where you could go with this if you wanted to.

Is there any reading I could do to get an overview of the arguments about how far to take post processing?

Click to expand...

As you say a photo is created with light, it also uses the various parts of the camera (shutter, aperture, settings etc.), the skills of the photographer to name a few. Once the image is in camera it has to be post processed (if RAW, otherwise processed in camera for jpg).

Surely post processing is just a different form of light manipulation to setting shutter speed, aperture, iso etc. How much post processing you do is irrelevant, it is still a photo. This IMHO gets blurred when you create an image from several images that are not linked in real life (ie combining a photo of the Shard, your garden & Kew gardens and creating an image or your garden being like Kew but with the Shard in the corner) although a panorama created from 7 photos would be ok as the scene does exist and only lens AOV prevents it being taken in one shot.

drsilver said:

I've read several articles recently postulating Ansel Adams' genius was in the lab as a chemist and so doesn't qualify as art. That the amount of post processing involved in his work took him too far out of the realm of what we think of as photography.

Something like that. I don't buy most of it.

Here's one, "Ansel Adams couldn't shoot his way out of a paper bag"

It does bring up a valid point, though. I think most of us would agree, maybe, that there is a post-processing line that can be crossed. A point where it's no longer just an image created with light.

I'm brand new at this. I been playing with Photoshop for a couple of months now and I'm kind of, just a tiny little bit, getting the hang of it. I can kind of see where you could go with this if you wanted to.

I'm certain this has been discussed here, but I haven't looked for it. I'm concerned that factions have been formed and I'm not sure I want to jump in the middle of that.

Is there any reading I could do to get an overview of the arguments about how far to take post processing?

Click to expand...

The article is just internet crap.

drsilver said:

I've read several articles recently postulating Ansel Adams' genius was in the lab as a chemist and so doesn't qualify as art. That the amount of post processing involved in his work took him too far out of the realm of what we think of as photography.

Something like that. I don't buy most of it.

Here's one, "Ansel Adams couldn't shoot his way out of a paper bag"

It does bring up a valid point, though. I think most of us would agree, maybe, that there is a post-processing line that can be crossed. A point where it's no longer just an image created with light.

I'm brand new at this. I been playing with Photoshop for a couple of months now and I'm kind of, just a tiny little bit, getting the hang of it. I can kind of see where you could go with this if you wanted to.

I'm certain this has been discussed here, but I haven't looked for it. I'm concerned that factions have been formed and I'm not sure I want to jump in the middle of that.

Is there any reading I could do to get an overview of the arguments about how far to take post processing?

Click to expand...

Have you ever really looked at his images, like properly looked at them. Regardless of what he did in the dark room with his chemistry what he captured in the field was art any click bait article telling you otherwise is just trash.

drsilver said:

Is there any reading I could do to get an overview of the arguments about how far to take post processing?

Click to expand...

There is no "how far". It is your image and you do with it what you want, more importantly if you don't experiment, take risks and accept critique you will never grow and develop. Just do your thing

Checkout the somewhat contrived "Helsinki Bus Station Theory"
https://SPAM/10x-curiosity/the-helsinki-bus-theory-when-to-stick-it-out-ac9dd90bbec0

The point being (and what Ansell did) you need to stick to your guns.

BTW, who wrote that article? I haven't clicked it, don't what to add to their hit count but what makes them able to critique Adams, who says they even know what a good photo looks like? There are an awful lot of people who are s*** at seeing and don't recognise how s*** they are but still want to foist their mediocrity on the rest of the world.

sirch said:

There are an awful lot of people who are s*** at seeing and don't recognise how s*** they are but still want to foist their mediocrity on the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

And that typo is now both staring me in the face and annoying me, corrected in the original. ... THEIR

One thing to remember about Ansel Adams was that he was a pioneer, creating landscape images when very few other people were doing it. There are probably thousands of landscape photographers who have gone far further than AA was able to go. That's not to put him down but the equipment, materials and techniques that photographers can call today are way beyond what was available to AA.