The lost craft of photography?

[Organnyx]

Most social photography is about producing a saleable print, and is not about "leaving room for graphics" we had the skill to "allow space" if needs be, but it wasn't very prevalent, and there was no point in not framing correctly

ALL forms of film photography demanded that you "got it right", whether you were a common or garden "smudger" who did weddings, functions and portraits, or were in the rarified atmosphere of magazine work, or medical photography - it was a way of saving time, money and effort when it came to processing - I know many very adept darkroom printers who still bothered to "get it right" in the first place - it was, and still is, a very sensible way to work.....

As for the nonsensical ravings about standardised film............we had a choice of emulsions that were fairly predictable - you'd choose the one for the job, that simple, nothing restrictive about it (just the inescapable laws of physics......)

 

[jon ryan]

How did you shoot banners, or 1:1 aspect ratio requirements? What did you do with your sports shots that had wonky horizons?

 

[Organnyx]

What sports shots?
What banners?
Wonky horizons, we didn't do them, we used the bloody viewfinder!
- If you wanted 1:1 proportions you'd use a Hasselblad or Rollei 6x6..........(but you generally didn't "need" 1:1 most of the time)

 

[Teflon-Mike]

a great many of the people who post on this forum are "only" social photographers, I trust they'll share my views on such pronouncements.

You have just supported my argument. A great number, does not mean its the entire population of practitioners across all disciplines, or that they should all share your enthusiasm and value as highly one particular bit of pedantry.

Few are disputing the merit of clean camera work; but your original hypothesis was that people shooting to post process, accepting sloppy in camera discipline were displaying a deterioration in the craft skills of the persuit.

They are not. They are merely utilising an extended skillset that doesn't place such cruciality on in camera discipline.

Perhaps I should have been more pedantic and given a fuller answer - in around 20 years as a professional photographer, I never used any filters at all, but accept that some landscape photographers find grads and polarisers useful, my comment (crummy photographers took refuge in filters and cross-processing) was directed at the partially bewildered who used some of the battier bits of plastic produced by Mr Cokin, or indulged in "cross processing" in an attempt at turd polishing...........

You have critasised my commentry as disparaging; yet I've not resorted to such debasing terminology as you have just used!

I would be inclined to agree to some extent that the popularisation, over use and poor use of Cokin 'Creative Effect' filters, often resulted in some very cheesy or simply horrible pictures. BUT they were just another tool in the armoury of photographic parafanalia, and used well, have made some wonderful and memorable pictures.

Now you seem to be, not merely fighting a battle against Photo-shop, but against all but social reportage and highly disciplined and accurate photo-recording of such!

It's back to your concern with YOUR kind of photography, that would seem to dismiss or attempt to suggest irrelevance to all other areas of photographic practice!

I am mindful at this point, that while many might benefit from the wisdom you have acquired over your long, professional photographic career in the merits of clean camera work, in the realm of social photography, to apply to both that area of practice as well as others where it may be beneficial; I think that with the seemingly very tight framed perspective you have on all of what photography is or might be, you might learn MORE from others, and learning from them, WHY they do things the way they do, in thier area of photographic practice.

As an engineer, old addage before trying to re-invent the wheel; "Before asking why not, ask why so?"

Why ARE so many people using post processing so extensively? What is driving that trend? why is it working for them? ARE they really THAT stupid? Or is there something else going on your not apreciating?

Its looking for the 'bigger picture'... which brings me neatly to:-

"even if that was merely framing a bit wide to crop in printing" - why on earth do something so daft? -it takes more time and effort to correct what you should have got right in the first place.......

You can always disguard what you don't want. You cant get back what you never had.

You laughed at my "Know what you know, but how do you know what you need to know", quip... but there is more wisdom in that, I think, than your suggestions over the value and importance of strict in camera cleanliness.

 

[ding76uk]

Film photographers had it easy compared to those who used glass negs, who had it easy compared to metal negs etc. etc.

Digital is the same principle as film. It is all about timing and composition. Yes it is easier to view your shots etc. but on the flip what was considered acceptable for a good photo back then, would be laughed at now.

For every technical innovation that makes it "easier" there is a massive jump in the quality needed to stand out as a great photographer.

 

[jon ryan]

What sports shots?
What banners?
Wonky horizons, we didn't do them, we used the bloody viewfinder!
- If you wanted 1:1 proportions you'd use a Hasselblad or Rollei 6x6..........(but you generally didn't "need" 1:1 most of the time)

You don't know much about press photography, do you?

 

[Organnyx]

I can only speak from my own experience, some are foolish enough to think they speak for "everybody".
" have made some wonderful and memorable pictures" - pull the other one, there are several filters that it is impossible to get a good picture from.........

" They are merely utilising an extended skillset that doesn't place such cruciality on in camera discipline" - cobblers!- they usually don't have the skills to "get it right" in the first place and rely instead on faffing in PP (which is what this thread is all about)

"Why ARE so many people using post processing so extensively?" - because it's there, it's easily accessible and it looks really easy to make a rubbish image into something really good - just take a look at all the utterly dreadful over-processed images we see nowadays - so often I look at them and think "there may be a pretty girl in there somewhere", but sadly so often completely lost in over-smoothing, over-emphasised eyes and manipulations of the background (and I haven't even mentioned HDR.....)


"not merely fighting a battle against Photo-shop, but against all but social reportage and highly disciplined and accurate photo-recording of such!" - what on earth......?

 

[Organnyx]

I wasn't a "press photographer", I was a social photographer, but I did know enough to produce many thousands of shots that could have been classified as such.........

 

[AR-Graphics]

As originator of this post i feel I have lit the blue touch paper.....

It's been most interesting some of the comments that have been made, and the passions that have been raised. I've been a bit saddened by some of the friction that seems to have been generated that was never my intention.

Anyhow it's clear there are a lot of different viewpoints, misunderstandings, and some misconceptions. One of the points raised is about getting it right in the camera, and others have argued that there has always been post processing in the darkroom with paper grades, and all the other tricks. All I will say to them (and I'm gobsmacked no one else has mentioned it) is what about transparency film? No post processing there (apart from pushing or pulling the processing which is only applicable if you know you've screwed up). When the slide was projected, if you had not got it right in camera, nothing was going to save you!

Some people seem to think us PD (pre digital) photographers decry the new technology. I know for a fact that I (and I would think the majority of others here) have embraced digital with open arms. I know it has opened vast new possibilities for my photography, made it far easier, and removed the stress of waiting to get the films processed!

There are some who still enjoy the old process of processing and printing and I say good for them. The only thing I miss is watching the print appear (I urge anyone who has not witnessed it to do so if you ever get the chance, it's a magical moment).

I think you have all answered my question. Although many old skills have died out as they have no relivance in digital photography, there are still many who have brought the old crafts with them adapting them where needed. Ex film users will continue using the applicable skills such as getting it right in the camera etc as that was the way we have had to work in the past and it is ingrained in us. Some digital photographers have also taken up those ideals and are using them whilst others have forged there own path to the finished result. And that is all that matters. THE FINAL IMAGE! At the end of the day neither way is right or wrong and neither way will produce a better of worse photograph, that is purely down to the person producing the image.

I would like to think most of the people following this thread would agree, recognise and accept there are many ways of working. If we can do so it will be a great strength as we can all learn from and help each other.

Anyway thank you for all your comments and time. Enjoy your photography.

 

[jon ryan]

I wasn't a "press photographer"...

So perhaps you shouldn't judge the knowledge of those of us who know a bit about it, and who employ a different skill-set, of which you are clearly totally ignorant?

 

[Organnyx]

So perhaps you shouldn't judge the knowledge of those of us who know a bit about it, and who employ a different skill-set, of which you are clearly totally ignorant?

I didn't - I spoke from my experience - there were and still are far more general social photographers than those engaged in press or editorial work - I spoke from my experience in my field - and reiterate that it is to my mind always best to do as much as you can "in camera" to produce the result you need to do your job, whether back in the seemingly dark ages of film, or nowadays when "PP" seems to take over from photography all together.....
I gave a simple example earlier on of the girl with skin like an orange - I learnt how to light her in such a way that it didn't show, nowadays most people don't even bother to try to understand or use such techniques, it's straight for Photoshop instead........

 

[simonblue]

I must admit i don't miss the darkroom to much,also i don't do a lot of pp but each to his own.
A lot of crafts have disappear over the years due to new tec not just photographer.

A lot of people still love using film i don't think it will completely die out.

As for the pro some market have dried up in photographer,due to market forces ie photojournalist market has suffer as i have said before.
Some market have grown paps due to are demand for celeb photos.

 

[treeman]

All I will say to them (and I'm gobsmacked no one else has mentioned it) is what about transparency film? No post processing there (apart from pushing or pulling the processing which is only applicable if you know you've screwed up). When the slide was projected, if you had not got it right in camera, nothing was going to save you!

It crossed my mind a few pages back, but feared it might enrage the situation even more

Considering nearly all commercial photography was produced this way, i guessed everyone was just arguing about social photography :shrug:

Though I will add, only occasionally were transparencies retouched, and that was at the request of the photographers client, who didn't like something or another, not the photographer trying to correct his mistakes.

 

[jon ryan]

I didn't - I spoke from my experience - there were and still are far more general social photographers than those engaged in press or editorial work - I spoke from my experience in my field - and reiterate that it is to my mind always best to do as much as you can "in camera" to produce the result you need to do your job, whether back in the seemingly dark ages of film, or nowadays when "PP" seems to take over from photography all together.....
I gave a simple example earlier on of the girl with skin like an orange - I learnt how to light her in such a way that it didn't show, nowadays most people don't even bother to try to understand or use such techniques, it's straight for Photoshop instead........

Those of us who work in editorial photography have every bit a much need to 'get it right in the camera' as photographers in any other field, and I am frankly insulted to hear you say we may not have those skills. But we are capable of error. If you can get your horizons straight every time when shooting a couple of footballers 50 meters away, through driving sleet, in bad light, you're a better man than me. I know from years of experience that this is impossible. I will deliberately frame such shot a bit wide, knowing that I have the skill and experience to correct the inevitable errors in post. This is because I have spent many hours studying and practising my editing skills, along with my camera handling skills, because I know that editing is an essential part of my work. You seem to think that editing is irrelevant or somehow cheating. You are wrong. For instance, by their very nature digital shots come out of the camera 'soft', particularly RAW shots (and you do shoot RAW don't you? Any photographer who knows anything about digital shoots RAW, when possible). So at the very least, you need to know how to add sharpening.

 

[AR-Graphics]

It crossed my mind a few pages back, but feared it might enrage the situation even more

Considering nearly all commercial photography was produced this way, i guessed everyone was just arguing about social photography :shrug:

Though I will add, only occasionally were transparencies retouched, and that was at the request of the photographers client, who didn't like something or another, not the photographer trying to correct his mistakes.

Well I guess that's just me, always ready with a gallon of petrol in case of a fire!

Glad someone is reading my posts, as you will see I tried to restore love and happiness! Lol

 

[Moos3h]

I hated the darkroom. Never saw it as part of the process and always gladly got others to do it! But I do miss seeing more shots printed!

 

[Pookeyhead]

How did you shoot banners, or 1:1 aspect ratio requirements?

I Shot on 5x4, and for 1:1 extended the rail and bellows. For smaller macro work I used to use extension tubes on a Mamyia RB67

What did you do with your sports shots that had wonky horizons?

A).. just don't get it wonky in the first place, and B) cropping isn't anything under discussion here anyway.

Why are we suddenly discussing cropping, or enlarging and image? You all know full well that's not what the OP was referring to with the whole digital/processing debate. Images have always been cropped for as long as there's been photography.

This debate is descending more and more into pedantry as it goes along.

Digital makes you lazy. You end up not doing everything in camera because you don't have to. I say lazy... but actually, that's a misnomer: It's actually more difficult and more time consuming to do most of the things I see done, in post... but they require less skill to do in post... so it's not laziness in photography, as most people are quite dedicated when it comes to post processing - It's a laziness in learning. People would rather spend time at the computer instead. Maybe they enjoy it.... no idea. Great for the hobbyist, but I wonder how productive you are as a commercial photographer if you spend hours at the computer when it's not necessary.

If you're Dave Hill... sure, you're entire career is predicated upon sitting at a computer. Having said that though.... Jill Greenberg spends hours sitting at a computer too, but I often find it amusing when amateurs consistently fail to copy her style even though they have step by step instructions on how to do so. What they fail to appreciate it that her post processing relies on a very specific lighting requirement to make it work well.


Anyone else who spends hours at a computer when it's not necessary really should consider investing more time in learning how to work more efficiently if you ask me. Those who feel their work demands heavy post processing need to consider that improving their lighting skills will probably enable them to strengthen their end result too. Everyone else will benefit because the less time you spend sitting at a computer, the better.

I find it ironic, that the discipline and skill required to work to a high professional standard with film, actually makes you work more efficiently with digital.


The Professional:
If you're spending time sitting at a computer... you're working. The longer you work for on each image, the less you are getting paid for that image. Your choice.

The Amateur:
If you're not being paid for your work... same still applies. Some people like it though.... and that's fine too... but that's when the over cooked abortions happen. They tinker, and play, and fiddle... Fine.. if that's your M.O.... but if everything that your images rely upon to look good happen when you're sitting on your arse in front of a computer... are you a photographer, or a digital artist?


If you want to be a photographer, go and do photography... not capture a scene to work on when you get home. Pre-digital, even great photography that didn't need studio lighting or props, or make-up artists looked great straight out of the camera. Why do they suddenly need lots of post processing now? If you want to rely on your post processing techniques almost exclusively to make your shots work, then that's fine too... just have the balls to admit that photography plays a lesser role in what you do.

Some people can't be arsed learning the craft of photography... but they still want to be photographers.

There's nothing wrong with being a digital artist at all... but I bet a great many of you reading this feel insulted if you DO merely capture and then do all the work at a computer.. and then someone suggests that you are less of a photgapher. Why? What's wrong with being a digital artist?

Having a camera somewhere in the equation doesn't make it photography IMO.

I don't care about the argument, or the thread.... I just want people to ask themselves a question... and answer it honestly. I'm not even interested in your replies... just ask yourself.... "Could you do what you do if you were not allowed to post process at all... if you didn't even posses a computer?"

If the answer is no, then how much of a photographer are you in reality? Does that bother you if everyone started considering you as less of a photographer? Imagine that everyone in the world suddenly stopped calling you a photographer as a result.... would it upset you if they started calling you a digital artist? If so... if photography is so important to you, why not spend as much time as you can with that part of the process?

I don't want people to misunderstand me either. I love digital. I shoot almost exclusively digital and have for years. I'm not some regressive analogue warrior with his head in the sand.

Some of my work is really, really heavily post processed too.. and every now and then, someone will say, "Is this good photography?". I answer usually with, "I don't give a crap.. it's a great image". The fact that the image may have made people think I was less of a photographer doesn't concern me at all. Deep down though.... I know I can nail a sheet of E6, every time, and produce work every bit as good without a digital camera or a computer. Does that make me a better photographer? Technically.. yes, it does actually. Got a problem with that? LOL Does it make me a better image maker? No... no it doesn't. Creativity does that.


So.. I've made you read all that (or maybe I haven't) and I think my final thoughts are.... who cares.

Really... who cares. I've come to the conclusion, for some.. mainly men... photography is like driving. You can't criticise their driving, or suggest they perhaps need to improve their driving. It's a macho thing.


Creativity is everything. Film, digital.... it's all a load of b****x if you can't apply creative thought and fully understand that you're communicating to people with images.

There you go... just my mind working on a page... just reflecting... make of it what you will. Either way, this thread will just carry on descending into "Yeah but you crop your images nerr ner nerrr nerrrr nerr"... so who cares. If nothing else this post will probably make someone start typing in caps.... that's always amusing.

 

[jon ryan]

I was answering this point:

Most social photography is about producing a saleable print, and is not about "leaving room for graphics" we had the skill to "allow space" if needs be, but it wasn't very prevalent, and there was no point in not framing correctly

I Shot on 5x4, and for 1:1 extended the rail and bellows. For smaller macro work I used to use extension tubes on a Mamyia RB67

When your editor asks for a banner shot to run across the top of a two-page spread, and you know that the other shots will be various shapes, you frame with that in mind knowing you will crop to shape later. They didn't provide me with a 5x4 as that would be pretty useless for practical press work.

A).. just don't get it wonky in the first place, and B) cropping isn't anything under discussion here anyway.

You don't know much about press work, do you?

 

[Organnyx]

Pookyhead - Well said!

 

[jon ryan]

Tell me how you would get the framing 'right in camera' on something like this, please?

 

[Pookeyhead]

I was answering this point:








You don't know much about press work, do you?

Not much, no.... but I also said that cropping or rotating is not really what's under debate here.... as well you know. All you are discussing here is cropping. Why are you discussing cropping?

 

[petersmart]

TBH this whole thread seems to miss one simple point - the amount of mind blowingly good and BRILLIANT shots has increased beyond all belief since the advent of digital photography.

Just look at the shots on Flickr, 500px and even this forum to see the incredible difference that digital photography has given us.

And don't forget if it wasn't for the whole digital world there wouldn't even be a forum for anyone to debate anything on - apart of course for a few letters to the few photography magazines that did exist before the digital world.

Or a few letters to The Times of course

.

 

[Pookeyhead]

TBH this whole thread seems to miss one simple point - the amount of mind blowingly good and BRILLIANT shots has increased beyond all belief since the advent of digital photography.

.

I really don't think anyone is arguing with you on that point. I know I'm not.

 

[Organnyx]

"Flickr, 500px " - I have, and the vast proportion is utter dross - is that down to laziness, digital, or just a lack of taste?

As for this "let's miss the point of the thread by wittering about cropping" - if you find you are unable to get the horizon straight "in camera", then it may suit you to frame it a bit wider, and faff later - to be pedantic, that is "getting it right in the camera" for your way of working.

I don't shoot football or motorcycling, but have shot quite a lot of equestrian stuff - can't say I've ever found the need to correct wonky horizons.

To try to conflate the internet with photography is rather like saying a violin and a film camera are pretty much the same.........I happily use digital, and enjoy the advantages it confers over film, I'm not "anti digital" per se, but I am perplexed by the inability of many to fully embrace the art of using a camera, thinking (wrongly) that it can "all be done in PP) - it can't!

 

[jon ryan]

There have been a number of points raised about editing and the tired old meme of 'getting it right in camera'. Getting it right in camera is essential if your end result is to be acceptable, but there are limits to what a camera can do and knowing these limits and knowing how to edit, go hand in hand. Those shots were taken mostly at 5000ISO and the light was still not enough so I had to underexpose for a number of the shots. Hence, the necessity of editing. And cropping well is just as much an editing skill as any other.

As for never getting a wonky horizon when doing equestrian work...really? I shoot a lot of equestrian and know a lot of equestrian photographers. You are clearly the most gifted among us for never getting a single one wonky.

Well done you!

 

[Pookeyhead]

"Flickr, 500px " - I have, and the vast proportion is utter dross - is that down to laziness, digital, or just a lack of taste?

...and I don't argue with that either. There are crap images, and there are great images... pretty much just how it's always been. There are more great images though... purely because digital allowed everyone to achieve a higher standard than they would have if they relied on film. Which is my point. Making it more accessible to those with lower skills doesn't equate to great images.

Lots of people think stuff is great because it's just eye candy... it's actually trite nonsense with no thought, creativity or meaning. Some people think that if an image "looks" good.. it "is" good. That's because they don't understand photography.

Hence, the necessity of editing. And cropping well is just as much an editing skill as any other.

But it always has been... and therefore isn't really relevant in this debate.

 

[jon ryan]

You don't know much about press work, do you?

Not much, no.... but I also said that cropping or rotating is not really what's under debate here.... as well you know. All you are discussing here is cropping. Why are you discussing cropping?

I asked you how you would have frame the provided examples using a camera following your remark about how you would do it. But thank you for admitting that press is an area of photography you haven't studied - perhaps you should? A lot of your students could probably benefit.

 

[boyfalldown]

Flickr, 500 px and the like may have alot of dross, but there is is some very good stuff around out there. I don't believe the craft of photography has been lost at all. Even slightly. I think that the standards are higher then they ever were. Digital may well give more latitude to experiment then film, but those experiments produce some fantastic stuff as well sometimes.

The rules of composition, exposure, knowing how to light a subject well etc etc haven't changed. As is often said a turd polished in PP is still a turd. Simply because the darkroom has become much more accessible with digital photography doesn't mean its become any more or any less an important part of the process then it ever was.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I asked you how you would have frame the provided examples using a camera following your remark about how you would do it. But thank you for admitting that press is an area of photography you haven't studied - perhaps you should? A lot of your students could probably benefit.

I have no interest in it, sorry, and I have nothing to do with it.


We have someone on the team who is incredibly experienced though (you didn't think a degree programme was run by one person did you?).

 

[Lindsay D]

The rules of composition, exposure, knowing how to light a subject well etc etc haven't changed. As is often said a turd polished in PP is still a turd. Simply because the darkroom has become much more accessible with digital photography doesn't mean its become any more or any less an important part of the process then it ever was.

I think that sums it up well.

 

[DemiLion]

Summary:

All digital (and film for that matter) photography will benefit from an element of post processing.

You cannot improve a careless, lazy, misunderstood or crap photograph with post processing.

Some people post process waaayyyyyy to much.


There are very few cut and dried rules in photography.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Summary:

All digital (and film for that matter) photography will benefit from an element of post processing.

You cannot improve a careless, lazy, misunderstood or crap photograph with post processing.

Some people post process waaayyyyyy to much.


There are very few cut and dried rules in photography.

I'd be happy to close this thread on that comment, yes.

 

[jon ryan]

Seconded.

 

[Steve]

I'm not some regressive analogue warrior with his head in the sand.

Oooh...thats a new one,....neatly combining the luddite and elitist tags in one phrase.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm nothing if not versatile

 

[ernesto]

So is the craft of photography lost or not, or has it just changed and some people don't like change (nothing learnt there)

 

[AR-Graphics]

Just a quick one.

Why do people seem to conveniently be ignoring my comment about no post with transparency film. Forget social or news..... No don't forget news as I seem to remember seeing the wonderful images coming out of viatnam in the 60s shot on Kodachrome. Anyway most commercial work was shot on transparency and it was no good supplying the printer or projecting anything other than a top notch image which meant you had to get it right in camera and the tolerances with slide film could be really tight.

Anyway I'm away soon for a week but don't worry I'll try and spend a bit of time thinking up another contentious thread to post! Lol :nono:

 

[AR-Graphics]

So is the craft of photography lost or not, or has it just changed and some people don't like change (nothing learnt there)

See one of my previous posts. As the OP I feel my question has been answered and I've posted MY conclusions. However I'm sure the debate will continue.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

All you are discussing here is cropping. Why are you discussing cropping?

I mentioned a while back, that debate was degenerating arguing the semantics and tug-of-warring over the goal-posts of what was and where Post-Processing started, and used the example of shooting wide & cropping, to show where, long before digital was devised, basic 'Post-Processing' could be employed, and photographers could actually demonstrate craft skill, shooting to utilize post-capture re-framing. Ergo practicing a fuller range of craft skills, not necessarily being lazy or sloppy or ignorant, doing so.

..... I have tended, as I mentioned earlier to shoot to post process to some degree, even if that was merely framing a bit wide to crop in printing

Organnyx, has made an issue out of it, and nothing less than in-camera perfection seems acceptable to his standards; and implied that I am too lazy, ignorant or incapable of using a camera 'properly', by admitting to exploiting this elementary post-process tool at my disposal!

Why do people seem to conveniently be ignoring my comment about no post with transparency film. :

I thought I'd mentioned slides earlier? ah! Here it is.

.......Occassionally, perhaps, some sad chap would torture his freinds and family, pulling out a projector & darkening the living room to give a slide show of thier holiday snaps.

Yes... and yes, it is one of the areas where clean-in-camera discipline may be more important... thought I had muttered more on that idea....
Let me see... No.. was on another recent thread in F&C... here you are: From My photographic journey on Film & Conventional.

People don’t generally want to look at slides; and even as a photographers own appraisal medium, HOW are you going to look at them? 35mm on a light-box? You aren't going to see very much in such a small artefact, are you? Even under a lupe. Projected on a screen? You are no longer looking at the first hand article, but a second generation image, subject to enlargement distortion and error.

You will almost NEVER view a 35mm frame in detail, you will always look at it in some second generation enlarged reproduction.

Its an anomoly, where post-processing potential is limited. NOT impossible.. entering the realms of Cibachrome & commercial reprographics.

Commercially, transparency film was rarely shot as the 'final product'; master transparency was post-processed for reproduction, even if that was merely to make slide sets, maybe for gift shop sale. (Often camera'd down to 35mm for home projection, from medium format originals, I believe).

And even in the ameteur arena? Well, I still have a slide duplicator lens in the attic somewhere; useful gizmo for a veriety of higher order post-process manipulations, that required an inter-neg; but primary use; to make 'projection sets' from original transparencies, in order to preserve the original image, so it wouldn't be damaged by projector transport, over heating or merely fade through prolonged projection. But, provided oportunity to apply post-process corrections; light source could be filtered to effect colour corrections; exposure adjusted to effect brightness & contrast, and magnification could be adjusted to effect frame cropping, pre-projection.

Post-Processing was still POSSIBLE, even with transparency film, and even where it wasn't inherently necessary to make the final product.

Where do you want to take the debate on that one?
It was still a choice NOT to effect possible post processing.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So is the craft of photography lost or not, or has it just changed and some people don't like change (nothing learnt there)

The art of photography as it was 30 years is starting to become lost I think, yes... whether it matters is another debate. Personally, I think possibly not. Whatever happens, creativity, originality, and thinking photographers will always make engaging images, by whichever method is currently available.

Crap images will always be crap no matter how much PP you throw at them.