cshimokita
[Photo Forum Moderator]
10714
In the article a "purist" has a somewhat negative connotation...
meaning someone who shoots by an arbitrary set of rules, such as only using natural light, not cropping, and no (limited) post processing as the ideal form of expression.
One small nit is that in photography "editing" is defined as selecting which photo(s) will be used in the article or exhibition. Manipulation of an image is most often referred to as post processing, although manipulation can also take place before or during the shoot... such as the use of artificial lighting (e.g. flash / reflectors) or filters (PL / ND Grads). The choice of equipment also comes into play regarding the rendering of certain sensors and lenses and in the non-digital world with the choice of film emulsion.
"P-Mode" has improved over the years to the point where some of the in-camera jpgs are preferred over time spent in front of a PC... the Fuji X-series is often given as an example... YMMV
But I agree with Tihomir Lazarov that it's positive to explore the manual setting of the equipment and learn basic post processing while remembering that a photograph is a statement by the photographer and is not limited to what is natural to the eye of the viewer... some even go so far as to say that a photograph is not an absolute truth or that all images are more fiction than fact.
Enjoyable post...
Casey
Why hardcore purists may find difficult to make a good quality photography of a high contrast scene
I agree when he says the editing doesn't mean we are trying to save a bad photo. The quality of the photo before editing is of course the most important, but editing can sublimate a picture.
Link to the full article
Editing digital photos is no different than what we used to do to manipulate film.
Thank you for your comment, Emil
In the article a "purist" has a somewhat negative connotation...
Thanks Casey
