this will be intresting

Oh well, here goes. I'm always up for a challenge. This is an MX-1 raw file, sadly not particularly pictorial but it is straight out of the camera.

That is a very narrow view point, although you are entitled to it. It would be great I agree. But would you enjoy a picture of a tiny Gannet in the top right corner of a mass of sea on your wall? Or would you prefer a beautiful image of a graceful bird in a well composed picture. That is one of the major benefits of digital photography. If you can't capture a moment perfectly (like swimming a hundred metres out to sea with a camera in your hand!) then you still have the ability to create something good. Why wouldn't you for God's sake! Getting a bloody big boat right in perfect light isn't that stretching!
Of course I would also say that the picture is the sole property of the taker and he/she has artistic license to do whatever they please with it!

Well, this is essentially my first post in the PentaxUser forum, so I might as well jump right into the fire.

Edgar Degas in his famous dancers at the barre reworked the painting numerous times before it was just what he wanted. X-rays also show that DaVinci's Mona Lisa went through multiple revisions. And, for some reason, I suspect that Shakespeare rewrote a line or two.

Having said all that, a recent photo exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston showed a number of intermediate prints by some of the great photographers of the past. These prints had the photographers' notes and mark-ups for their final prints (burn this, dodge that, soften here, etc.). Multiple prints with adjustments. That is not exactly straight out of the camera, is it?

Given that the greats make revisions, why shouldn't we weekend warriors be given this same privilege? Just saying...

I think that's a great first post on the Forum and very eloquently explained. Hits the nail on the head.

Regards
David

Can't help but agree with David's post. Texan wisdom from Aggiedad

Amazed how this thread has run! Like many here I admire most those who have the skill and vision to see their final image in their head when setting up a photo. Those who bought Outdoor Photographer this month will have seen the work of Henrik Spranz http://henrikspranz.photoshelter.com/index who goes to great lengths to get it right in camera with amazing results. This includes finding the right (antique) lens for a soft image rather than tweaking about later, despite or because of his main job as a software engineer.

Some say the only test is the end result, that how it is achieved is irrelevant. I don't agree, and also cannot correlate photography with painting but admit I can't quite put my finger on why. Maybe because a photo implies that it is a true and realistic record of something seen. Another example: there is a photographer who goes to great lengths to set up and take dreamlike underwater photos of women in floaty dresses reclining on a coral bed. It would have been much cheaper and easier to Photoshop instead, but knowing the process somehow makes the end result more appreciative. Put it this way, if I was in the market to buy photos I would happily pay thousands for such an image but not a Photoshop cobble.

I'm not sure I get the point there about Mr Spranz ... ? It's an impressive portfolio and clearly very well captured images, but all of the photos are quite heavily processed, obviously so .... He wouldn't have got very far with any of those without a computer and good processing skills.

I agree this has been an illuminating thread! I've learnt plenty, not about photography, but about the people ... Us.... And the great divide that exists between us. None of the attitudes and polar opinions expressed here appear any way reconcilable...

Rob, your soft antique lens vs PhotoShop blur filter example is a case in point ....I can see absolutely no added value in the effect produced in-camera with the antique lens over an equal result produced later on the computer ... Assuming equivilent' results then it means no difference to me, and absolutely not worth paying more for .... That moves the whole thing into the terrain of preciousness .

To Spranz his day job is very demanding and desk bound so the activity involved in taking the photos is his release, not just spending more computer time postprocessing and I can identify with that. The luxury of being an amateur!

I'm not sure where you get those ideas about Spranz from? I can only go on the evidence of the photos, and in my opinion they are clearly well prepared and edited on a computer. Why do you think they are not?

Read the article. Quote: "..at the moment I am trying to avoid using software at all, which means that it has to look great on the camera display before you got home."

' At the moment' may have been a very short time. I still believe the majority of those images linked to have been processed in software. What do others think.... ?

I think if it (the final image that I'm looking at) looks good, then well done.

Fully agree, I didn't read the article neither seen his latest work but his current portfolios containing heavily processed images.

From what I can see on his website he doesn't say he 'gets it right in camera.' What he does say is 'What I see and what I feel when being there is what I want to transport to the viewer.' That's not the same thing.