On 2015-10-25 12:34:35 +0000, "MC" said:

nospam wrote:

... many film luddites claim that digital photography is not
'real' because people manipulate images in photoshop.

apparently they are oblivious to the fact that film photographers did
exactly that in the darkroom.


This is true. The photography bit is the actual process of selecting a
scene and recording it by placing the image on the film or sensor.
What happens after that is not strictly photography. Call it editing,
manipulation or whatever but is seperate from the photography bit.
Both compliment one another to create the final viewable image but the
second part of the process cannot be done without the actual recording
process and this is why both processes seem to be associated as a
single process which we all call "photography".

MC

Traditional wet darkroom work is by definition pure photography. One
uses light from an enlarger, passing through a negative to "paint with
light". Dodging and burning to modify the print is photography. This is
photography in its essential form, and is an integral part of creating
an image by recording a scene or subject with light.
This is why the wet darkroom played a major part in the creative
process of photographers like Adams. His works were not just products
of the camera, and that is a reason they might be emulated but not
truly reproduced by photographers shooting the same scenes.

Digital post processing is something else all together. It is digital
mimicry of the darkroom process.

--
Regards,

Savageduck