I'm a chemist and a photographer. The only difference between "traditional" or "real" photography and digital photography is that we've swapped the chemistry of silver for the chemistry of silicon. Nothing else has changed. Post processing, dodge and burn, etc, etc, is the same now as it always was. Thank you for the video, the art of photography is in seeing a great photo, not in how you record it.

Street photographer Jill Freedman said something along the lines of “it’s the image that matters, not how you got it”. I take that motto to heart. Thanks for your rant… 👍🏻

Thank you brother! I couldn’t agree more! As someone who loves abstracts, the way I see this is that criticizing post processing is like saying Monet was a crappy artist because his paintings were not realistic.

"I don't give a damn how it gets there, the final image is all that counts." -Minor White

💯 agree with you. Your images connect with me. Whether or not someone considers it photography or not,I’m drawn to the work and for me that’s what matters.

These were very wise arguments on a topic that should be unnecessary to defend. I smile every time someone, who himself photographs in JPG, criticizes my editing.

Great discussion. Yep, totally agree. Been doing in the wet darkroom, now whole lot easier in the digital darkroom.KB

I have been involved in photography since I was 8 (1968). I have been a Nature and Landscape photographer for forty years. Over that time doing Art Fairs and festivals, I have run into the statement "no digital manipulation," Which I find to be hypocritical. Those who say that do not understand that photography is manipulation at its core. We take a moment in time and record it on film or a sensor, and that is manipulation, period. The trick, whether in the wet darkroom or in a digital darkroom, is to find that fine line between what we saw and how we want to represent it and pull back just enough to keep the final image believable while staying true to our mind's eye. Keep up the great work.

My in camera and post production workflows are often quite complex or as simple as needs be, and I have a very elastic attitude to the photographic process. My loyalties are to what I saw, and what I remember from what I saw. So, anything goes. Leonard Misonne is an example of what an incredible technical ability combined with a breathtaking vision of the world through photographic manipulation of the visual image can bring to the table. I think you are right, let’s get on with it all.

💯agree! I started photography in the darkroom so I am experienced in both editing processes and you are spot on. What drives me crazy is when they separate photography from “Art”. Photography is most certainly ART!!! I consider myself an artist and my camera & computer are my paintbrush and canvas!

I subscribed to your channel because I like your work. The most important thing is that you enjoy your work. 👍👍

You don’t have to explain nothing to anyone but yourself. Keep doing what you enjoy I love your work

Photography is a genre of art. Art has no limits.

Thanks so much! I just discovered your channel, and I really like your opinions on how you show the world through your photos. As an amateur, I do always wonder how I can manipulate/digitally develop my pictures (I never did film photography, but I'm thinking about it, we'll see). And actually, there is no "how I can". Whatever adjustment/development/manipulation is a personal position taken on an image. Hearing you saying this now makes a lot of sense to me. We define our thresholds with how we show what is in front of us. Overall, it's an endless question "what is real". As a scientist, I believe (well, thanks Dr Einstein) that it's just a relative matter ;)

Totally agree with you ,your images are brilliant. Don’t listen to the photography snobs !

One may not like or agree with another's work, but should still respect their right to do so.

Very admirative of your work! Thanks for sharing!

I just did a rant about this exact topic on sky replacement and the hate it gets. Great job brother.

And just like that, a ray of perfect perspective and reason shone across the world of photography and the truth was illuminated. Amen brother.

Well said! My sentiments exactly.

Well said!

Well said. I will list in order what I consider to be the different results from what we generally call photography. Snapshot - quick moment immortalization Photo - well balanced image. Photography - slightly post processed photo. Art - more heavily post processed photo. Fine art - heavily post processed phot with an enhanced artistic application. Composite - name says it all. The distinction for me between photo and art is when the artist/photographer heavily alters the original photo by adding or subtracting elements, changing skies or altering colors. The most important thing to me however is that I do not have a problem with ANY OF IT because ultimately there is a deliberate act of taking a photo with a vision behind it whether it is one of recreating the reality of the moment or an alternative vision of said photo. All in all do what pleases your eye not what others want you to do. You cannot please everybody but those in your niche will sure appreciate your work.

I’m so glad you decided to make this video. I’m 100% with you. And to add to your point, The whole idea that straight off the camera is not processing is not understanding that straight-off-the-camera is just accepting the filters that the camera manufacturers have as preset in the camera. This is why we all shoot raw so we can bring the mood, look and feelings we as artists want to bring to the image. Just like A. Adams did in the dark room by dodging and burning. Another thing is that people tend to believe that photography is reality and by definition that’s far from true. Photography as a medium is just a representation of reality as seen through a bunch of optics. This optics have distortions (of reality)… and we can in part correct those distortion, but then again correcting that distortion is post processing the photo. So what’s more real… the photo with the correction that has less distortion, or the original photo with the distortion. It’s a fool errand to even discuss it. If we truly believe photography is a form of art then we shouldn’t be discussing how to limit what people do it is photography or not. And this is coming from somebody who doesn’t do composites or anything like that. I do focus stack and correct for lens distortion and manipulate tones and colors. But I won’t be the one to criticize or tell people how to call their art. Per usual, great video majo!

You are so right. I couldn't agree more...

Superb! I think conversations about all aspects of photography are valuable in themselves, keeps us thoughtful about what we’re doing and why.

Totally agree thank you

I am looking forward to next year's rant!

I click "like" for the rant!

Absolutely! The only rule that really matters is to forget the rules!!

Excellent points. As my photography has grown, I've moved away from trying to show everything as 'real' and moved more into the art aspects which is what I enjoy most. You can be so creative, photography is an art after all!

Love this! Make your art, your way

Ps we used to have the same argument on my masters degree in photography but in the end we were marked on the finished art show not on how we get there. A badly composed image will always be bad however much processing you do...

I've been a photographer for over 25 years, shooting both digital and analog. Art is the final representation of a subject, and it doesn't matter how it got there. No one who visits a gallery or museum and looks at a piece of art asks the curator whether the image was "manipulated". I would bet that the Mona Lisa was manipulated.

It's all about the magic of the moment illusion wonder

I follow you for your output and the way you record your videos. Keep it up.

I grew up with Kodachrome and was quite happy with most of my images. I just took the medium for how it inherently worked. Probably why I like jpegs SOOC so much. I also shoot raw and reserve the opportunity to get adventurous later. I do have a few images I have played with and liked the results when cranking it. For me, photography is essentially about recording what is before you. Cloning out a person or using a long exposure is equivalent to waiting for them to leave (or shooing them away). Removing a building or pole is a fundamental alteration. Blurring clouds or waves is recording technique, not unlike choice of film (esp. use of B&W) which again differs from our perception. Change the color of someone’s jacket? Fair game unless you are claiming strict documentation. But no matter what you call it, the images are still legitimate for appreciation no matter how achieved.

First things first: Thanks for your work. I think it really doesn't matter if it is called photography, digital art or whatever. What counts, is if your result is what you wanted it to be. And you nailed it: art does not know conventions. Be open, even when you found your way. There might be a turn you want to take.

I always have thought that a few words can end the editing debate. “Photography is a art.” I have never seen a waterfall with white fluffy cotton like still water flowing over it, but there are millions of photos of these strange things taken by photographers from all over the world. I just accept that the image is an interpretation of how the artist wants you to feel about the scene.

If ever there was a digital photographer that made me question my love affair with film it would be you . I fully get why you are shooting digital given your nomadic lifestyle, when the time comes for me to hit the road full time then I'm sure I will go the same way In the meantime I stay will within the film and darkroom world. 100% impractical and indulgent perhaps and riddled with the odd fundamental screw up . The legacy of your film Days is very evident in your images I'm sure when we met recently you looked at my 500 cm with a tinge of nostalgia Editing wise that's down to you where you draw the line

Make the art you love and don’t worry about the label the world puts on it. :-)

There is no such thing as an "unedited" image! I love both full editing workflows and my custom Fuji recipes. I loved working in the (real) darkroom, dodging and burning prints from 120 roll film. It's all degrees of the same thing, interpreting the world through our lens and our eyes. RE applying your "style"in camera, Fuji makes this really easy and I've done some experimentation with it. The XT4 is even more powerful in this regard then my XT3 but I have a feeling you'd enjoy working with the custom recipe settings in any of them.

Wonderful video

I agree with you 100%, but I don't think the discussion will end here, unfortunately. Just keep calm and snap on! 😁

I like your thinking and approach to "editing" - I believe it is a personal thing as to what you want your image to look like in the final analysis. Not as per anyones' or some photographic rulebook because then it is not yours anylonger. A final image is a personal thing, whether accepted by the purists or not. So the "critics" either like it or just simply move on .. .. ..

Hi Adrian, Nice flow of thoughts :) and thanks for sharing them. • I consider myself a happy pal for having had the experience in a real darkroom, developing rolls of film and paper photos on my own. I guess those who have never done it have no clue that almost all of what they do in a post processing software now, could be done in a classic darkroom. Perhaps hence the misunderstanding? Or maybe they're just jealous of your great images :) • In my opinion, the time you dedicate on the location taking the shots (be it a mobile phone, a digital camera or a film camera), thinking about the image (message, composition, technique), the time you invest in postprocessing or processing - these are the things that make it photography and the result a photograph. • Most importantly, photography is there to enjoy it! All the best and keep up the good work! Ciao!

Great rant. Pushing your argument one could say that anything other than a straight print from a pinhole camera is a manipulated image.

Well said sir !

Thank you

Thank you for this video. I ageee with you totally. Your work is wonderful and I take a lot of inspiration from it. I find it really tiresome reading the comments or listening to the comments of the self-appointed gatekeepers who “rule” what is or what is not photography. Many of them don’t even have the guts to show us how great their work is, but are quite happy to pontificate on the subject and believe we are entitled to their opinions. Even if people shoot JPEG and decide to not edit them, they should understand that in producing the JPEG, the camera has applied some adjustments predetermined by the manufacturer. You can adjust those predetermined adjustments on some cameras and opt for increased saturation or contrast, for instance. In seven years of shooting RAW, I’ve only once made a photograph where the unedited RAW file looked better than anything I was able to do. And not all RAW files are equal, they vary from manufacturer to manufacturer and from model to model. As you rightly pointed out, a long exposure is producing an image that our eye and mind cannot see ordinarily. A black and white image is also one that the eye and mind cannot see ordinarily. Colour blind people see some colours and less than 1% of the human population see no colour at all and only shades of grey. A landscape painting is an impression and interpretation of what an artist saw. A photograph, no matter how it is made, is the same. Old dictionary definitions, written before the invention of digital photography, describe it as a chemical process involving the exposure of film. Those definitions are taken as gospel by some, but dictionaries published in the digital era include digital in the definition of photography.

Anyone who has a remedial appreciation of the history of photography would never be dogmatic about what can be allowed as "real" photography.

I shoot with a Sony A7III and Voigtlander lens. Although the Voigtlander produces great colours, the images straight out of camera do look a little flat and there is no colour consistency from day to day. I use minimal editing to add depth and consistent colour. Personally I see nothing wrong with that.

I had a very similar conversation with someone just yesterday, not sure that he wanted to have his mind changed.

I totally agree with you except on one point. You mentioned long exposures as a "lie" as they doesn't record what was actually there. But is is actually not a lie at all. It's just the perception of the space with a different time scale than we are used to thinking in or visualizing. Long exposures may be more like what a snail might perceive the space around them to be like, but it isn't lying (and a "normal" 1/125th exposure isn't "truth"). Or think of it this way... when photographing a waterfall, you have the option of making an exposure at 1/8000th of a second, and you will see every single little droplet of water... but we don't see that way. You could shoot at 1 second (or 10, or one minute, etc.) and we also don't perceive the water in that was either. Shoot it at about 1/60th and it starts to look a lot like how we perceive it with the "naked eye". But none are "truths" and none are "lies".

In my opinion, the big difference between a photo that comes straight out of the camera and one after it has been edited is that are two photos! What I mean is that when you take a shoot you have one photo and after editing you have another photo. I would find it honest for a photographer to publish both photos. If both are good you are a doubly good photographer, in taking and editing. I say this because I often see appreciable photos ONLY after they have been edited. My experience, as a total amateur, is that I had to edit the best photos very little and the fear was that I would ruin them with editing.

Critics of digital photo processing are a lot like like the fat guys who critique professional athletes.

My reasons for wanting to get it "in camera" are very simple. I'm lazy. If I can get what I want in the jpeg, then I don't have to spend time in Lightroom and/or Photoshop to get what I want. But I always shoot both RAW and jpeg, just in case I miss or can't. Best of both worlds. ;-) And you are correct about Ansel Adams. If anyone has read his books (in particular, _The Print_), they would see that he deftly manipulated his negatives to get prints that looked wildly different, both from each other, and the "raw" negative. Some of his more famous works have prints with completely different skies, for instance. Of course, one "advantage" of film in this instance, is that each print is unique from every other print, thus increasing (or inflating, if one is inclined to think that way) their value for collectors.

I only use an analogue darkroom and do way more image prossesing than you do but not as much people such as Ansel Adam's etc. If you look at his moon rise picture if you get a chance to see the original and one of his later prints they are completely different. But I take pictures for a finished fi e art print. For me it works. I finished emotion is the end result.

I think there is a line but for an individual partaking in the art/hobby, post-processing is an essential part of bridging the work to the vision. The final product should satisfy the photographer first and foremost. How it’s categorised, whether or not it fulfils any kind of criteria, is trivial.

You made it all the way out to Cottonwood Canyon. 😀

Photography is an Art not a discipline, totally agree with your sentiments

"Some people say you need to master Manual to be a proper photographer. Some say you must shoot in RAW to be taken seriously. Some say you need a big camera to take great photos or you’re just messing around. Me? I say nonsense to all of that, and in my book ‘In Camera’ I’ll show you why. The 100 photographs I shot for this book have one thing in common: they’re all JPEGs straight-out-of-camera. Not a single one was modified or manipulated outside of the camera with a computer or mobile app. All 100 were also taken with compact mirrorless cameras, although every single tip and technique can equally be applied to Digital SLRs not to mention many point-and-shoot cameras and phones too. My philosophy is great photos can be created in-camera at the point of capture. Composing in Live View or reviewing images straight after taking them allow you to check your results and correct your technique in the field - there’s literally no excuse for getting it wrong. If it doesn’t look right, don’t walk away thinking you’ll simply fix it in post. Stick around and try again with a different approach; maybe an alternative angle; how about adjusting the settings; perhaps waiting to see if the light improves. If you’re determined to achieve the desired result in-camera, you’ll hone your technique, perfect your art and save a lot of time. For the majority of the images here, I was sufficiently happy with the result that I copied them from my camera to phone over Wifi and shared them socially moments after taking them. There’s a simplicity and honesty to completing the job on-location that really appeals to me." - Gordon Laing

💯👏👏

Hi Adrián, I think if someone says that's not photography is because envy (creo que se dice así, tú dominas el inglés más que yo, jajaja). Everybody edits their photos, including people who shots only JPEG. Obviously if You're shooting in raw, you will finish your photo with one raw editor. You will change contrast, shadows, lights...., and at the end you will have the photo. Maybe a personnal edition, maybe a realistic edition. It doesn't matter cos in both cases you have a manipulated image. Maybe the problem of people Who likes to say "that's not photography" is because they don't Know shoot or edit easy landscapes or simply they don't Know How to create or find their own style. Best regards.

IMO, we should consider that what we create for viewers to see is an “image” - a broader term than “photograph”; a term that includes processing of what was originally recorded on light sensitive media. Is an analog “negative” a photograph? No, the final “print” is the product of a creative process that ends with an “image”.

I'm thinking some people are jealous of your creativity. They will say nasty things in an attempt to tear you down. I think that I have fallen back down to earth myself in the last few years. I no longer feel a threatened by another photographer's creativity. I try and learn from them. Take a piece of what they do with me. Maybe this is how we grow. As for the people saying your work is not photography. Excuse my language please. They are full of shit.

Sadly, this debate will never end. Photography is art, art has no rules. Just do what makes you happy. I would change "real" photography to "purest" photography what you see is what you get. Those who want to be a National Geographic photographer but are not.

Every photograph is a manupilation of a moment of reality. To copy reality on film, paper or a digital file is not possible. It is all about capturing and if needed postprocessing reality to get the result you like and want.

You're the BEST!! Best photographer and BEST vlogger on KZfaq today. Keep up the output and even though you're responding to morons I still love these types of videos. Everything you do is great. I wish you'd come to New Zealand. Would love to show you some of my black sand beaches to shoot. You'd love them.

Ask Steve McCurry about post processing.

I don’t understand how you can compare post production work done in a darkroom by “the hand of man”, relying on the skills and talents of that person, to post production work done on a computer relying on the skills and talents of the person that wrote the software. That’s like comparing a sculptor that sculpts a masterpiece from a lump of clay with his own hands to someone that has some sort of computer driven cnc machine that carves the clay for them, and trying to argue that the end result is the same so they must both be sculptors. 🤷‍♂️

If the masters of film had digital.....

My own “line” is that objects should not be inserted into an image - that alters reality completely whereas removing a small obstruction is OK for me. It’s all personal though and we should stop the debate. Leave that to the world of competitions which have their own rules.

Im a photo noob, but technical. When I do the work to get the results I want with a filter on my lens or long exposure, I'm showing some sort of unsaid respect for my pictures and artform. Editing out a tree or something ok, but these broad filters and corrections and such i dont get it. And, again I have zero artistic ability otherwise, or background in photography. But, this is JUST me...

Many buffoons would argue that even classical photographers such as Bresson spend many hours in the darkroom to create images. That is DIFFERENT. Those darkroom work is the same as what goes on inside a digital camera immediately after you click the shutter…instantly processing the captured data into a VISUAL image (JPEG)…all done inside the camera. Different cameras process it differently…hence the term “colour science”. Those old cameras needed a darkroom for the image to materialise. Thats fine. The real issue is, AFTER the jpeg is created in-camera, is that image subjected to manipulation? IMO, those old school photographers created many images that didnt look like reality. It was far from reality (eg: many of Bresson’s images) as those “looks” were crafted inside the darkroom, radically different from whats on the negative. Hence, I dont admire such “imagologists”. Modern photographers use the RAW files for the same purpose…endless, extensive manipulation…very often turning reality to sheer, ridiculous disreality such as those on Instagram.

We should call photography Digital Art and that will be the end of that debate. That is being said, I hate when photographers manipulate their images so much and still call them a photo. For me, the photo should be real, exactly what I see when I am standing there. Do not change the dirty lake water to blue pristine water Or don't freeze a waterfall. If you do that, call it an art, not a photograph. My rant is over :)

My camera and lens choice changes the image. My aperture choice changes the depth of field. My shutter speed changes the captured image. My film choice changes the image. My developer choice and process changes the image. My paper choice and how I dodge and burn and “manipulate” the light getting to paper changes the image. All of it is a “manipulation”. The “photography” purists are obsessed with the idea of light as if that’s all that matters. Pixels on a sensor are basically the same as light sensitive silver halide crystals. They both record light. What you do with it after is still “photography”.

A los puristas les digo siempre lo mismo... Mostrame que la realidad es igual a cualquiera de tus fotografías puristas y hablamos... jajajajaja, saludos desde Córdoba, Argentina.

I would really like to know where this all started , aren't you making an intentional choice about how you want your photos to look when you choose a film type to get a certain look. I grew up in the darkroom and I'm not doing anything different in lightroom than I did all those years ago in the darkroom. It's just quicker and more convenient now, No chemicals to get rid of. Much cheaper than going through photo paper before you get the right look. Honestly I really think some people need to study the history of photography, how it all started and the journey up to present day .

Removing things in post processing that are fixed in place in a scene because they spoil your photograph isn't really photography in my eyes. If you were to look at the way entries in international salons have changed over the last couple of decades you'd see that digital has made possible a type of image that was just never seen in the film days. It doesn't really matter whether you think today's entries are better or worse: digital and film entries can be so markedly different that I believe the former should be called "digital imaging" rather than photography.

No me gustan nada esos tipos que salen al campo, toman una foto mediocre y luego se lían a poner reflejos donde no existían, meter HDR a saco para eliminar las sombras dejando una imagen plana y sustituir el cielo nuboso por otro de un azul intenso (o por una magnífica puesta de Sol) para impactar en Instagram con una imagen que casi tiene más de render que de fotografía. Como dice Alex Kilbee, Photoshop nos puede volver vagos y conformarnos con fotografías mediocres que ya arreglaremos, pero la fotografía no es y nunca ha sido únicamente el acto de disparar una cámara. En el cuarto oscuro o el ordenador comienza la verdadera labor artesanal que nos permite aplicar a las imágenes nuestro estilo y, por supuesto, eliminar elementos que afean la foto. Si, por ejemplo, fotografío un edifico histórico, ¿por qué tengo que tragar con que haya una pintada en la fachada? ¿Y si fotografío algo que sucede en la calle, por qué tengo que aguantarme si hay un contenedor de basura en el fondo? Quienes no lo entienden deben de creer que la fotografía solo existe para la ciencia, la historiografía o el fotoperiodismo .

Why should a photo represent accurately what was there? If its an image presented in a court of law in evidence that the person really was in the crime scene then sure it must be an accurate representation of what was there because that's what you';re claiming the image is. Artistic photography makes no such claim to be photo realism or photojournalism. There's realism in painting and there's impressionism and cuboidism and pointillism in painting. So it is with photography.

As soon as you transfer from film to digital it's not photography because you're no longer dealing with light. It's digital image manipulation. Photography must be light to film, light to paper.

There's guys on KZfaq that have taken it to far for me: those that take multiple exposures and mix together the best elements of each shot to make one jaw dropping image. This is fake BS in my opinion and I instantly switch off them as their images ARE NOT honest images.

If you are correcting flaws in an image, then its acceptable. But if you’re not doing correction but MANIPULATION of the captured image until its very different from what the original image was, then that is not photography. Its the backroom digital creation of DISREALITY.

I categorize those so called purists as naive, or/and inexperienced.

Well said!