The Art of Photography from a Traditional Posture

[Ron Texas]

It depends on how far you go. Changing the sky or adding a flock of birds is a no no. Cloning out a tiny bird is OK. I can't state it as a rule. Flickr is loaded with oversaturated sunsets. Sometimes we need to be discussing the basics after seeing so many images on ASR where the horizon was not level or other obvious mistakes were present.

 

[LTig]

Good day, everyone! Hope you enjoy this short piece I wrote but not yet published. Thought I would see the type of varied responses from this group. Thank you.

Well my kind of photography is not very art related. I agree with @amirm that fixing colors, lights and shadows and editing minor flaws is acceptable (to me). Using montage techniques to assemble a final photograph from different photographs is not what I understand a photograph is or should be - I might call it photographic art or something like that. To be clear I make no distinction between analog or digital techniques. It's the final result that counts.

I do process my raw files because cameras are not able to capture what I see:

• Dynamic range in combination with JPG engines is still not good enough. JPG engines are optimized to work in the lighter part of the range (to prevent noise to become visible) which leads to blown out highlights. Compensating exposure by 2 stops down then leads to a very dark image, so I have to light it up in the raw converter.
• Humans see 3D while the camera catches 2D and the final photograph is 2D. Making the motive of the photo stand out against the background is the most important part of taking the photo in the first place, yet sometimes it still helps to enhance the contrast between motive and background/foreground (be it color contrast, dark/light contrast or sharp/unsharp contrast) in post processing.
• Humans see color while a b/w film sees only light. Here digital cams have a major advantage over b/w film because you can decide in post processing how the colors are weighted to reach a satisfying b/w photo. Playing with the color mixer while watching the b/w photo change dramatically is a revealing experience, and sometimes it is very difficult to decide which version is the best or most "correct" one.
• Dynamic range of photographic paper is a joke compared to what modern sensors (and negative film) can deliver. You basically have to lighten up shadows and darken highlights to prevent blown out highlights and black shadows. This is what Ansel Adams did in his photo lab. I don't see any difference between using analog or digitasl techniques, other that digital is much faster, much cheaper, repeatable and better for the environment.

Here is an example, first the b/w photo, then the jpg from the cam (Nikon D200, resized):

I used a plugin which emulates b/w film. To make the white clouds visible in the light blue sky I had to enhance contrast by a lot. Then I had to lighten up the central region quite a bit, and the darker regions heavily, otherwise most parts would have been black. I remember having used several layers of lighting up specific regions to look natural to my eyes. This kind of post processing is fine for me.

What I absolutely abhor is the abuse of HDR techniques. What I also don't like is the rise of more and more artificial color saturation, especially in landscape photo books and calendars. If you look into 30 year old photo books you see what the landscape really looked like. Today you visit the landscape and don't recognize it any more. But one is getting used to it (it's impossible to oversee color saturated images) and I realize that I myself apply more color saturation today then I used to do 10 years ago.

 

[restorer-john]

What I absolutely abhor is the abuse of HDR techniques. What I also don't like is the rise of more and more artificial color saturation, especially in landscape photo books and calendars. If you look into 30 year old photo books you see what the landscape really looked like. Today you visit the landscape and don't recognize it any more. But one is getting used to it (it's impossible to oversee color saturated images) and I realize that I myself apply more color saturation today then I used to do 10 years ago.

When photography is peddled as art, I don't care what techniques are applied. People will either find it enjoyable or not. Personal interpretation rules.

Photography as an accurate record or image is a different story. I'm a purist there, no post processing at all. It's all about the photgrapher's skill in that split second, not the hours spent "curating" the image afterwards.

Just like the "pure direct" button on an amplifier. When you want some extra sizzle in the bass and more top end, you switch in the EQ, but when you want the purest signal, you hit the bypass. I can't remember the last time I used tone/eq or any type of image manipulation.

 

[StevenEleven]

Well my kind of photography is not very art related. I agree with @amirm that fixing colors, lights and shadows and editing minor flaws is acceptable (to me). Using montage techniques to assemble a final photograph from different photographs is not what I understand a photograph is or should be - I might call it photographic art or something like that. To be clear I make no distinction between analog or digital techniques. It's the final result that counts.

I do process my raw files because cameras are not able to capture what I see:

• Dynamic range in combination with JPG engines is still not good enough. JPG engines are optimized to work in the lighter part of the range (to prevent noise to become visible) which leads to blown out highlights. Compensating exposure by 2 stops down then leads to a very dark image, so I have to light it up in the raw converter.
• Humans see 3D while the camera catches 2D and the final photograph is 2D. Making the motive of the photo stand out against the background is the most important part of taking the photo in the first place, yet sometimes it still helps to enhance the contrast between motive and background/foreground (be it color contrast, dark/light contrast or sharp/unsharp contrast) in post processing.
• Humans see color while a b/w film sees only light. Here digital cams have a major advantage over b/w film because you can decide in post processing how the colors are weighted to reach a satisfying b/w photo. Playing with the color mixer while watching the b/w photo change dramatically is a revealing experience, and sometimes it is very difficult to decide which version is the best or most "correct" one.
• Dynamic range of photographic paper is a joke compared to what modern sensors (and negative film) can deliver. You basically have to lighten up shadows and darken highlights to prevent blown out highlights and black shadows. This is what Ansel Adams did in his photo lab. I don't see any difference between using analog or digitasl techniques, other that digital is much faster, much cheaper, repeatable and better for the environment.

Here is an example, first the b/w photo, then the jpg from the cam (Nikon D200, resized):

View attachment 113419


View attachment 113420

I used a plugin which emulates b/w film. To make the white clouds visible in the light blue sky I had to enhance contrast by a lot. Then I had to lighten up the central region quite a bit, and the darker regions heavily, otherwise most parts would have been black. I remember having used several layers of lighting up specific regions to look natural to my eyes. This kind of post processing is fine for me.

What I absolutely abhor is the abuse of HDR techniques. What I also don't like is the rise of more and more artificial color saturation, especially in landscape photo books and calendars. If you look into 30 year old photo books you see what the landscape really looked like. Today you visit the landscape and don't recognize it any more. But one is getting used to it (it's impossible to oversee color saturated images) and I realize that I myself apply more color saturation today then I used to do 10 years ago.

Ooooh, are we sharing pictures?

I really like your black and white version of that landscape. Looks awesome. Interesting. Great depth and texture and contrast, etc. Dramatic.

Here's one, might be over-saturated for your taste. It's unlike any other of my pictures in many ways. The story behind it is I was walking around downtown pre-pandemic, walked into a Target, looked up, pulled out my point and shoot compact, and there you go!

I used a modern noise reduction software to clean up the many artifacts left behind by the cheap point and shoot compact jpeg, so it looks okay, pretty clean. No funny stuff going on here. Just a slight straighten and a standard-issue artifact and chromatic aberration (heavy sun backlighting on compact zoom lens) clean up and maybe(?) a little too much pop, I wasn't sure how far to go, since it's intended as a visual abstract kind of experience. I can always dial it back. Tried to keep the colors true. I call it target because it is literally a picture of a Target store. I downsized it a lot for ASR purposes. Just did this about 20 minutes ago.

 

[Wes]

If your landscapes look like motivational posters, then you are over-processing.

 

[LTig]

Photography as an accurate record or image is a different story. I'm a purist there, no post processing at all. It's all about the photgrapher's skill in that split second, not the hours spent "curating" the image afterwards.

I agree if the JPG engine does a really great job (and they are getting better). With my cams though this is not always the case, leaving problems I described in my posting. This is not just a point of setting the camera perfectly and catching the shot on spot.

Just like the "pure direct" button on an amplifier. When you want some extra sizzle in the bass and more top end, you switch in the EQ, but when you want the purest signal, you hit the bypass. I can't remember the last time I used tone/eq or any type of image manipulation.

What about to bad recordings of good music? Some people (like you?) just accept the bad sound, some buy speakers matched to bad recordings, others use tone controls. Count me to the last group .

 

[restorer-john]

I agree if the JPG engine does a really great job (and they are getting better). With my cams though this is not always the case, leaving problems I described in my posting. This is not just a point of setting the camera perfectly and catching the shot on spot.

What about to bad recordings of good music? Some people (like you?) just accept the bad sound, some buy speakers matched to bad recordings, others use tone controls. Count me to the last group .

Like audio, there isn't simply one correct answer.

As for photography, for me it's like golf. Any hack can go out on a golf course and hit a few incredible shots in a round. Shots a pro would be proud of. Trouble is you get one or maybe two per game, whereas a pro hits them everytime. I'm the hack with photography.

 

[Tks]

One way to look at this is if you knew what went into that image, would be disappointed in it then? I have seen gorgeous wildlife images but after reading the photographer put some peanut butter on a log to attract said animal, I am disappointed. What I thought was an amazing accomplishment, no longer was. Same then with post-production. What Ansel Adams did doesn't disappoint me. We all know what he did yet admiration stands.

What would disappoint me is sky replacement. For an ad image, sure. But to present as an image you took as art? That would be disappointing if I heard you did that.

Where do you stand in respect to Ansel Adams. The guy wanted to move away from photography movements prior to his, which all attempted to take cues from art masters of the past, and instead said letting photography stand on it's own as it's own medium. He then proceeded to do extensive processing work of his images.

One of his most famous, before and after

 

[pads]

For me and many others it's about capturing a fleeting moment in time, something that struck us as important, a feeling that triggered an action to capture. The digital realm has spoiled us, we can manipulate all aspects of that image but as much as we do so there's a loss, a measure of the inspiration that caught us in the first place. As others have said, the best shots are the ones which little if anything is needed, no colour manipulation or sharpening of the image. In my case this is inevitably pure luck such as the windmill pic I posted on another thread, taken on a whim with a small pocket camera on film in 1980 or this one on digital in the garden a few summers ago.

I've done nothing but crop the image, doubt if I could ever repeat it. Photography in its purist form is a diary of our lives, our thoughts and personal outlook as is all art. My father was a noted photomicrographer, his passion was primarily through a microscope (although he loved wildlife as well) I've heard from many people after he passed what his pics meant to them, we should all be so fortunate. From what I've seen on this site there are many here that excel at it, capturing moments we can all enjoy. No need to over think, evaluate or judge. Love what you do and others will see.

 

[LanceLewin]

I have thought about this at some length.

In your sentence:

For the most part, I am certain we can agree for all practical purposes, these particular (in-camera) image manipulations result in a picture we except as an authentic representation of what we saw through the viewfinder.

—the word “except“ should be “accept.”

Except that my feelings, when I take a picture, are nothing like that at all. I have a vision of what the final picture will look like, and I try to craft something in the moment that I take a picture that will get me to my vision. The more of the work that is done when I snap the shutter, the more effective I was at that point in time. It is a question of craftsmanship and process, not whether the end product is art, or acceptable, IMHO.

I think I may get where you are coming from though. For me it is like trying to distinguish a bush from a tree using only language, but perhaps an order of magnitude greater in difficulty than even that. For me, the end result if one has gone too far is nothing more than a private or internal eye-roll from me, having in mind that the person next to me may be deeply moved or intrigued by the same image.

I started on film and dark rooms. I was thrilled at the advent of digital photography that the same concepts of light and movement and composition could apply. The same applications of shutter speed, depth of field, contrast, grey, color, shape, lines, balance, motion, etc. But I see no need for a talented young one to think as I do. In fact I would be delighted to learn a young one thinks nothing like me at all, and creates art with these new visions, and new techniques.

I went to school on a campus with painters and classical musicians, stunned by their hard-won skills and talent. I respect the painter, the musician, with such painstaking skill, such care and practice, and so much left to feelings and judgment and love and imagination. Why would I strip these powers from the photographer, reduce him or her to a craftsman, if he or she aspires to art?

And I know that I am no more than a craftsman, and a mediocre one at that. I have seen and known the artists in the flesh, and have too much reverence for what they have achieved, to think otherwise.

So you could put me in a box you reserve for those who do not agree with you, if you wish! And close the lid, if you must!

Just my two cents.

Hi Steven and thank you for adding to this discussion. Also, appreciate the heads up on the typo issue.

Your words and general thoughts on the creative process within the digital photography revolution is exactly the same as many others: this view embraces the array of advanced post-production software technology in sculpting a final piece. So of course, I hear this rebuttal often.

Growing up in a family of artists (painters and sketch artists) and the subsequent meeting and sharing of artistic ideas and concepts with artists that have crossed my path the past two decades - a beautiful result of my semi-pro career in the Arts - no doubt has helped me learn, and teach, the skills and visualization processes for growing as an artist. Though I like to think my skill sets are mature at this time in my life, it still remains, the seemingly common belief, the very best skills of a photographer are still categorized as a step below the skills developed by artists from other visual art genres. And this next line of thought is particularly important: unlike other forms of visual art (i.e. painting, drawing, sculpture) which are defined by three very important dynamics: 1. selection, 2. elimination and 3. rearrangement. Painters (and even writers) have the ability to utilize all three methods in producing a work of art - where the proprietary art genre of photography only has the capabilities to use the first two; rearrangement is not possible by the photography-artist - as such, makes their work that much harder to produce a well composed artistic piece. It is this very fact that makes photography so special (and proprietary) - it is technically hard to learn well, let alone master. These ideas were first brought to the awareness of the art world by art critic and writer, Irina Khrabroff in her 1927 essay, "The art of Photography". (Full citation upon request).

In another post by Paul (also contributing to this discussion) has brought up the debates in the late 19th Century are similar to our discussion here: where extreme darkroom manipulation (including scratching the the negative or later coloring the print) was seen as a deliberate tool in "creating" art. Regardless of the intent (and finished piece) all those methods were still completed by "hand", both in and outside the darkroom (or during both development and also manipulating prints outside the darkroom). Still, the skills used were within the (proprietary) bounds of photographic technique - as the 3rd and most creative art-method, rearrangement, was still not used.

In 21st Century photography, the proprietary methods of this art genre have been breached, thus morphing it into a new realm, Digital Art.

Reiterating from an earlier post: In its self, I have no issues in promoting illustrative and conceptualized based photography, as long as an equal emphasis is attributed to traditional photographic virtues, and additionally, the two genres be categorized separately when applicable. And thankfully more and more museums, art galleries, local photography clubs and online photographic associations are becoming more strict on how they write the photography exhibition prospectus in which work is separated into selective category-genres.

 

[LanceLewin]

I have a couple of questions about this.

1. Is the divide between emphasizing creativity-behind-the camera vs. post-production about digital vs. chemical? Is it even new? How would the 19th century pictorialists, or early Edward Steichen, or even Ansel Adams ("the negative is the score; the print is the performance!") fit into this? Is it possible that we're looking at a split between those who see a photograph as something taken vs. something made? Or to borrow some language from contemporary poetry, does the work point more to an event in the world, or to an event on the page?

2. Have photographers and academic programs really abandoned traditional practice (in the sense I think you're using)? Or are we just witnessing some parallel approaches? I've been noticing a lot of the people getting attention these days returning to film—often big film. And a lot of the work is straight (in the sense used by the modernists; it might also be queer ...). I'm thinking of people like Alec Soth and LaToya Ruby Frazier. Their innovations have more to do with photographic storytelling than with process, or even with ways of putting an individual image together. They strike me as coming out of an old documentary tradition, but with new cultural perspectives. I saw piles of work that fit this description at the Whitney Biennial.

What about teachers? I have a few friends who teach photography (at places like ICP in New York, and at a couple of community colleges). This is hardly a big sample. I know they don't spend a whole lot of time teaching digital processing. Are you seeing an emphasis on digitally assembled / transformed / whatever images in university and MFA programs? Which ones?

Good morning, Paul. Below I just posted a few points (on Steven's contribution to this discussion) regarding 19th Century Pictorialism. (Please scroll down to read that passage. Thanks.)

No, I have not witnessed poor (formal school) photography instruction (as most K-12 do not have a program here in Georgia) but have experienced in person at local clubs/guilds and online (where I am the "Photographic Society of America" Black & White Photography Mentor). Within the PSA, almost every student of photography cares more about "creating" in front of the computer monitor (post-production) and less using skills from behind the viewfinder. However, they like what I am offering them, and its been pleasing to see their joy in expanding their palette of tools beyond those heavily dependent on digital manipulation. Yes, it includes post-production methods, but keeping them limited.

I have also seen this digital bias in Elementary, Middle and of course, more so in High school, where I give talks to art students. Most of these schools do not have a formal photography course being offered to them. Thank you, Paul.

 

[LanceLewin]

Where do you stand in respect to Ansel Adams. The guy wanted to move away from photography movements prior to his, which all attempted to take cues from art masters of the past, and instead said letting photography stand on it's own as it's own medium. He then proceeded to do extensive processing work of his images.

One of his most famous, before and after

Happy Friday, TKS! Yes, this is a well documented example of darkroom manipulation: in fact, it is a common practice for both film and digital based work to be heavily Dodged & Burned in the creative process. However, and as I have stated in a very extended response to a post by Steve, (please, go and find that response, it is relevant to your question here) it is still anchored within the scope of traditional photography technique. It is just a matter of presenting the work "as is" (or almost so...) or as a Pictorial version, as we see here in the darker more dramatic version very familiar to those whose love Adam's work. I have a similar aesthetic (or narrative) in my landscape, too.

 

[paulraphael]

I'd suggest that we be careful with the word "traditional," since photography has always encompassed different traditions. Sometimes competing ones. Ansel practically invented the flame war during his attacks on William Mortenson of the pictorialist movement. They both represented different traditions (each of which promoted lots of post-processing). People with a more journalistic bent (like Cartier-Bresson) came out of a different tradition still, critical of both of those others, and mostly unconcerned with any aspect of the print. Then there were all the other contemporary European traditions, related to Russian Constructivism, the Bauhaus, Surrealism, etc. etc. Each had its own esthetics, philosophies, preferred working styles ... often spelled out in manifestos!

 

[LanceLewin]

I'd suggest that we be careful with the word "traditional," since photography has always encompassed different traditions. Sometimes competing ones. Ansel practically invented the flame war during his attacks on William Mortenson of the pictorialist movement. They both represented different traditions (each of which promoted lots of post-processing). People with a more journalistic bent (like Cartier-Bresson) came out of a different tradition still, critical of both of those others, and mostly unconcerned with any aspect of the print. Then there were all the other contemporary European traditions, related to Russian Constructivism, the Bauhaus, Surrealism, etc. etc. Each had its own esthetics, philosophies, preferred working styles ... often spelled out in manifestos!

And these are good points: I actually find using the term sometimes uneasy - but for lack of a better term or to skip writing lengthy threads (and Lord, is that not a terrible excuse...) I refer back to using, traditional. Thank you, Paul. And I still am reading (and digesting) the philosophical essays you got me reading....stay tuned....

 

[LanceLewin]

Well my kind of photography is not very art related. I agree with @amirm that fixing colors, lights and shadows and editing minor flaws is acceptable (to me). Using montage techniques to assemble a final photograph from different photographs is not what I understand a photograph is or should be - I might call it photographic art or something like that. To be clear I make no distinction between analog or digital techniques. It's the final result that counts.

I do process my raw files because cameras are not able to capture what I see:

• Dynamic range in combination with JPG engines is still not good enough. JPG engines are optimized to work in the lighter part of the range (to prevent noise to become visible) which leads to blown out highlights. Compensating exposure by 2 stops down then leads to a very dark image, so I have to light it up in the raw converter.
• Humans see 3D while the camera catches 2D and the final photograph is 2D. Making the motive of the photo stand out against the background is the most important part of taking the photo in the first place, yet sometimes it still helps to enhance the contrast between motive and background/foreground (be it color contrast, dark/light contrast or sharp/unsharp contrast) in post processing.
• Humans see color while a b/w film sees only light. Here digital cams have a major advantage over b/w film because you can decide in post processing how the colors are weighted to reach a satisfying b/w photo. Playing with the color mixer while watching the b/w photo change dramatically is a revealing experience, and sometimes it is very difficult to decide which version is the best or most "correct" one.
• Dynamic range of photographic paper is a joke compared to what modern sensors (and negative film) can deliver. You basically have to lighten up shadows and darken highlights to prevent blown out highlights and black shadows. This is what Ansel Adams did in his photo lab. I don't see any difference between using analog or digitasl techniques, other that digital is much faster, much cheaper, repeatable and better for the environment.

Here is an example, first the b/w photo, then the jpg from the cam (Nikon D200, resized):

View attachment 113419


View attachment 113420

I used a plugin which emulates b/w film. To make the white clouds visible in the light blue sky I had to enhance contrast by a lot. Then I had to lighten up the central region quite a bit, and the darker regions heavily, otherwise most parts would have been black. I remember having used several layers of lighting up specific regions to look natural to my eyes. This kind of post processing is fine for me.

What I absolutely abhor is the abuse of HDR techniques. What I also don't like is the rise of more and more artificial color saturation, especially in landscape photo books and calendars. If you look into 30 year old photo books you see what the landscape really looked like. Today you visit the landscape and don't recognize it any more. But one is getting used to it (it's impossible to oversee color saturated images) and I realize that I myself apply more color saturation today then I used to do 10 years ago.

Good afternoon! Really appreciate this entry: love the BW conversion to this engaging Landscape!! I too follow and embrace your thoughts (insights) on post-production, and happy you shared them here. Hope you visit my website to learn a little more about my perspectives from behind the glass and teaching philosophy, they may interest you. visualizingart.com

 

[LanceLewin]

If your landscapes look like motivational posters, then you are over-processing.

...that's very funny!

 

[LanceLewin]

For me and many others it's about capturing a fleeting moment in time, something that struck us as important, a feeling that triggered an action to capture. The digital realm has spoiled us, we can manipulate all aspects of that image but as much as we do so there's a loss, a measure of the inspiration that caught us in the first place. As others have said, the best shots are the ones which little if anything is needed, no colour manipulation or sharpening of the image. In my case this is inevitably pure luck such as the windmill pic I posted on another thread, taken on a whim with a small pocket camera on film in 1980 or this one on digital in the garden a few summers ago.View attachment 113472
I've done nothing but crop the image, doubt if I could ever repeat it. Photography in its purist form is a diary of our lives, our thoughts and personal outlook as is all art. My father was a noted photomicrographer, his passion was primarily through a microscope (although he loved wildlife as well) I've heard from many people after he passed what his pics meant to them, we should all be so fortunate. From what I've seen on this site there are many here that excel at it, capturing moments we can all enjoy. No need to over think, evaluate or judge. Love what you do and others will see.

Good afternoon, Pads! The Fly, as long as that head is not white...we are all OK. Seriously, this is a very neat capture...love the shallow Dof that helps focus oon the subject. Nice capture! Would be nice if you could share a few of your dad's favorite photographs. Thanks!

 

[DWI]

I've not read the whole thread, but I've always considered photography an art.

Here are some images from an exhibition that range from realistic to highly edited and overlaid. Each have their merits. The images top left and lower right are multiple images overlaid and are both stunning.
https://www.kaupokikkas.com/treescape

I good tip I had a long time ago was that if you are after realism, edit only as much until it is not noticeably edited. If it is clearly edited, then you've gone too far.

 

[DWI]

Well my kind of photography is not very art related. I agree with @amirm that fixing colors, lights and shadows and editing minor flaws is acceptable (to me). Using montage techniques to assemble a final photograph from different photographs is not what I understand a photograph is or should be - I might call it photographic art or something like that. To be clear I make no distinction between analog or digital techniques. It's the final result that counts.

I do process my raw files because cameras are not able to capture what I see:

• Dynamic range in combination with JPG engines is still not good enough. JPG engines are optimized to work in the lighter part of the range (to prevent noise to become visible) which leads to blown out highlights. Compensating exposure by 2 stops down then leads to a very dark image, so I have to light it up in the raw converter.
• Humans see 3D while the camera catches 2D and the final photograph is 2D. Making the motive of the photo stand out against the background is the most important part of taking the photo in the first place, yet sometimes it still helps to enhance the contrast between motive and background/foreground (be it color contrast, dark/light contrast or sharp/unsharp contrast) in post processing.
• Humans see color while a b/w film sees only light. Here digital cams have a major advantage over b/w film because you can decide in post processing how the colors are weighted to reach a satisfying b/w photo. Playing with the color mixer while watching the b/w photo change dramatically is a revealing experience, and sometimes it is very difficult to decide which version is the best or most "correct" one.
• Dynamic range of photographic paper is a joke compared to what modern sensors (and negative film) can deliver. You basically have to lighten up shadows and darken highlights to prevent blown out highlights and black shadows. This is what Ansel Adams did in his photo lab. I don't see any difference between using analog or digitasl techniques, other that digital is much faster, much cheaper, repeatable and better for the environment.

Here is an example, first the b/w photo, then the jpg from the cam (Nikon D200, resized):

View attachment 113419


View attachment 113420

I used a plugin which emulates b/w film. To make the white clouds visible in the light blue sky I had to enhance contrast by a lot. Then I had to lighten up the central region quite a bit, and the darker regions heavily, otherwise most parts would have been black. I remember having used several layers of lighting up specific regions to look natural to my eyes. This kind of post processing is fine for me.

What I absolutely abhor is the abuse of HDR techniques. What I also don't like is the rise of more and more artificial color saturation, especially in landscape photo books and calendars. If you look into 30 year old photo books you see what the landscape really looked like. Today you visit the landscape and don't recognize it any more. But one is getting used to it (it's impossible to oversee color saturated images) and I realize that I myself apply more color saturation today then I used to do 10 years ago.

I still use B&W film. For 4 or 5 years I used a Leica M9 Monochrom, which does not use RGB, rather each pixel measures luminosity only. Pixel-counting then becomes largely irrelevant (it was 18mp) and you avoid all the problems of RGB imaging and B&W conversion, as it is never as good. You just can't get the dynamic contrast. I sold it, which I regret. This is an example test shot I took after buying it and a crop from the same image. There is no editing at all, this is the RAW file, and editing was rarely needed.

 

[LanceLewin]

I still use B&W film. For 4 or 5 years I used a Leica M9 Monochrom, which does not use RGB, rather each pixel measures luminosity only. Pixel-counting then becomes largely irrelevant (it was 18mp) and you avoid all the problems of RGB imaging and B&W conversion, as it is never as good. You just can't get the dynamic contrast. I sold it, which I regret. This is an example test shot I took after buying it and a crop from the same image. There is no editing at all, this is the RAW file, and editing was rarely needed.
View attachment 113563
View attachment 113564

Gee...amazing resolution in the closely cropped frame. Leave it to Leica. What glass is this? I remember when this camera was released, I never did see a comprehensive review on it - but I never did go looking. what film system do you use? I went digital in 2009, but in 2015 took back out my Minolta XD-11 and XD-7 film camera system. I shoot about 50% BW film now (Eastman Double-X/5222) Missed the aesthetics - now I am enjoying it again.