11 ms·

I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. If you ask the average person on the street

I find it much less interesting than traditional photography where you only have very limited and indirect control. If you ask the average person on the street to name a photographer, probably the only answer you'll get is Ansel Adams. He's best known for his stunning imagery of America's national parks. I don't think there's anyone who would claim that his portrayals of them are inaccurate in any way, certainly not that they're lies. Yet Adams was a master of darkroom manipulation. Part of what makes his portfolio so striking is his deft use of techniques like dodging and burning. This is certainly a bolder manipulation that something like aperture. He was doing this on film in the early-to-mid 1900s, so I think it's safe to say that this recognized master of traditional photography was already extensively manipulating imagery in many of the same ways that the unaware are currently decrying.

Grustaf 7y ago
My point was not about accuracy or truth, it’s about me finding art forms more interesting where the control is less direct. Even what you describe still sounds very far from the pixel level control you get with photoshop. I’m not sure who is ‘unaware” of what but I do think that in general things that are more strictly “regulated”, where you have less freedom, like wine making, are more highly regarded. Maybe there are lots of exceptions, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s just because old art forms tend to be less freely controlled, and by their nature have higher status. But with photography, are there any photoshop magicians that are as highly thought of as this Anselm Adams?