this will be intresting

It is definitely not the same thing. I often have a very clear memory of what I "saw" when I took a photo a JPEG on my standard setting will almost never correspond to my memory. My processing of a photo (normally RAW) will attempt to recreate that vision in my mind's eye. Some may say that my brain must be a bit weird, given some of the results they see in my photos. I couldn't possibly comment.

Some may say you are not a real photographer.

It's a difference in the thinking process and also in what we want as individuals to get out of photography. I'm thinking here of Nigel's postulation that whether we produce an image in camera or in software makes no difference as the end result looks the same.

Well it might look very similar, maybe not exactly the same, but in the camera instance we have a very hands-on experience. We may have to get our hands dirty out in the field, actually be in the rain, or whatever else it takes to make the shot.

In the computer version the thinking comes later rather than up-front. Although to be fair it can also be planned. Our creative input becomes less physical and more chair bound.

The question is, do we want to enjoy the physicality of being out in the rain to create an image with rain, or do we want to create the effect by skillful utilisation of software? One is probably healthier than the other, but it is a very personal choice of approach.

Not mutually exclusive John! I enjoy being outside and taking photos in all sorts of weather and light, and will try various approaches and ideas for shots. Some will work, some won't, and some may well produce a good image with a bit of software application. For instance, last night I stood at the edge of a field (accessed by a byway) in the near-dark waiting for a train to pass....bats flew past, owls hooted and normally it is a lovely quiet spot, except last night there was a music festival about a mile away, so the sound of a steam loco working up the grade with a heavy train was somewhat mitigated by the drum and bass from someway behind me!

Real Ale Train at Rookwood by Arle Images, on Flickr

I shot a JPEG, but I like to do a little more work with Topaz DeNoise and some tonal adjustment in Sagelight to get the effect wanted!

There is a not so fine line between minor enhancement post processing to Photoshopping the image into something else. The photographer I mentioned makes the point that competition rules define the limits for an image to be accepted. I remember an image of a tribesman walking along a dusty track which turned out to be a composite of about five different photos taken at different times and places; as a 'photo' it implied this was a recording of a place and time but is just deceit. To me the end doesn't always justify the means, the process is as important as the end result and that should be as transparent as possible. In a painting you can see both the artist's image and the skills applied by which it is achieved but not so with a photographic image.

Totally agree with Rob above.

I think the real question is when does it stop been photography and become digital manipulation, there's nothing wrong with either but someone (like Stu) who wants to present images straight out of the camera is going to struggle to compete with someone who utilises a lot of post shot manipulation, even someone who does minimum post processing is now at a severe disadvantage when it come to competitions.

But many of those photos RobL refers to in that gallery are composites or partially defocussed and others HDR'd. There might be one odd one without much PP, There's one shot of a young blackbird standing on a fence. The bird is sharp enough but the point it is standing on is way out of focus. That's post processing at work. The cityscape is HDR'd and are most of the lake scenes are heavily HDR'd. None of those adjustments in post are minor. If he says somewhere they are he's kidding!

This was one of the first posts I read and the first post I responded to after joining your forum.

My mind revisited the thread today as I was in the midst of post-processing a photo of an abandoned travel trailer (caravan?). To me, the image screamed to be in monochrome. So there I was, messing around in Lightroom, Tonality Pro, and Nik Silver Efex trying to find just the right mood for this picture. Doing all this stuff brought this discussion back to mind.

I have read everyone's thoughts, including my own previous post. It seems to me that the real answer is, "who cares?" You know what you want, and I know what I want. And both of us know what we regard as the legitimate way to achieve our goals.

Suppose you post a beautiful image of a hawk and it comes from a visit to the local raptor recovery center. That hawk is sitting on a perch and you probably took twenty frames from every angle. Your image may be right out of the camera, but it is, in effect, staged. Is that so different than me reworking an image which was captured at the local park, cloning out utility pole in the background and cropping tightly? Who cares? We both got what we wanted in a manner we were comfortable.

I love clouds in my shots, but I'll never merge clouds into a nice landscape to improve the image. They weren't there originally, so that's that. On the other hand, I will crop out a corner of a road or clone away some utility wires so it looks like I am far from civilization. Crazy ethic? Sure. But its my ethic for my images.

Today for me is all about creating a monochrome image to suit my subject. I didn't see it monochrome and it didn't come out of the camera in monochrome. No, but monochrome is what I want. I thought about it from the moment I took the shot.

In other words, its my own creation just as your image is your creation. How you get there is purely your choice. If your objective is to see how well you can shoot a photo without any post processing, go for it. If your objective, like mine, is to create the best possible image for display that you can, then that's great too.

Oh by the way, I actually did do those out-of-camera photos for years. The camera was a Polaroid. I don't want to do that any more.

Well said AggieDad, I see this debate taking place in other forums as well without resolution but as long as what you do is for your own personal enjoyment, as you say, who cares?

There will never be any resolution to this, ever.

There are so many ways to do things and so many different opinions on what people find "acceptable" even trying to draw a line between what some see as Photography and others see as Digital Manipulation would cause no end of discussion as everyones point of view is different.

When digital first took off someone coined the acronym GIGA, Garbage In Garbage Out, that used to be very true but with the advances in photoshop and the availability of god knows how many filters even a novice can now make the proverbial silk purse out of a sows ear and rescue an image that would otherwise have gone in the recycle bin.

EDIT: Typo.

Thank goodness for Photoshop etc., without which...