A friend of mine studied to become a photographer back in the early 80s, and tried to develop her own photographic style by taking black and white photos (on film of course, digital was unheard of back then), get black and white prints, and hand-colour them. Black and white as such does not represent "nature as it is", since normally things ARE in colour, which is a first step of "processing things differently", and later her colour did not necessarily represent what was really there at the time she had pointed her camera at the given scene, but what she later felt was how she wanted that particular photo to look like. Which is a kind of post processing that you may also say went overboard since her photo in the end showed only "half" of reality, and it was obvious that something unusual had been done to the colours.
For example.
Which shows that manipulated photos have been around at all times, and often enough people also accepted and welcomed the kind of manipulation. It shows more of an artistic approach to photography than spotting a scene and pressing the button that once does (to later have a lab create the end result and that's it - or to proudly say 'This is straight out of the camera').
Now no one get me wrong, please: it is, of course, good, and actually vital, to create good photography in camera, to know all about the settings and to achieve as much at the point of pushing the button as can be. But to later look at the end result and say "I now would wish to see THIS very result even ... whatever it can be: darker/more contrasted/in black and white/with blurs and so on" is a step FURTHER, not WRONGER, or wrong to begin with.
What annoys me about post processing and its perception among the "general public" is that to admit to having done MORE to the photo than just take it is often regarded with a bit of "then at first it must have been bad, if pp was needed to make it this good". Too few people really understand the work you can do in say: Photoshop (or other software of the kind), and too often the use of post processing software (in digital times) is mistaken for "making a wrong right". Which is a pity.
And which leads to discussion themes such as this where someone who feels he likes a more post processed style better than the naturalistic approach to photography feels compelled to WONDER whether his approach is right, or too much, or even maybe wrong, unwise, not good enough.
And here we talk about photos that have been taken with the INTENT of creating something beyond a snapshot. Cloning out the ex-girlfriend in order to keep going with a nice photo of oneself is on a totally different level, I feel. Cloning out the ex might make it easier to look at the photo at the time when having been left still hurts, but does not make a previously unartistic photo a more artistic one.
And faking reality via post processing in photo journalism is a completely different kind of matter, of course, we need not even begin to discuss that, I think! We all agree that in that particular field of photography it should not be done (and we all know that is IS being done...).
But when it comes to wanting to express oneself ARTISTICALLY I should say that actually anything goes once the end result expresses what the creator of said image felt they WANTED to express. And if it can only be expressed by using MANY post processing steps, then so be it!
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36603-a830ccec573081105d6aafcccc650605.jpg?1734169056)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32937-a884897f1671b4bfa4a955c9e4b7e574.jpg?1734162741)
