Get It Right In Camera...

[lputman]

There are so many discussions regarding photoshopping a photo vs. getting it right in camera. What is often used as the comparison is that photoshopping is the equivalent of darkroom. How much was really done in the darkroom, was it just burning and dodging? How were those beautiful portraits of created of Hollywood's glamour girls in the 30's and 40's? This might be of interest...

Seraphic Secret: Joan Crawford: Untouched/Retouched

[dakwegmo]

What an awesome example of just how long photo manipulation has been around. Nice find!

[TheDarkReaver]

The Hurrell Process: How to Lose 10 Years in 6 Hours

[BigVinnie]

Photo manipulation is certainly nothing new.

One of the main reasons medium format remained king in the studio was not IQ, but negative size. A 6x7 negative in the hands of a skilled re-toucher can be quite dramatic. I pretty much consider 35mm to be the equivalent to shooting jpg

I think a lot of folks are a bit clueless about film. They want to take the high road and claim that shooting film somehow is a purest endeavor. That is pretty much B.S.

I owned a commercial lab for many years. Every image printed was manipulated. A skilled operator could look at a negative and dial in a bit of correction. Large prints were done by hand and fine tuned.

All photoshop has done is exposed that back room processing to the masses. I'm not convinced that is a good thing. In fact if I were to ever get back to doing weddings I would probably outsource the post. Companies like Photographers Edit are filling a niche that I think is needed. It is the equivalent of a commercial lab for processing raw files.

[milosh]

That's a great article Lori!

[private]

I blame Nikon for peole thinking you get a "perfect" photo in camera. HAve you seen those Ashton Kutcher commercials?