Maybe Greg is right and real cameras are doomed...

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Close? Close is relative. A phone is close for some. If it really were "close," GFX and Hassy would be dead.

Click to expand...

Uh, not so fast with that last sentence.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/diminishing-returns-in-photography/

We are used to spending more and more for smaller and smaller improvements in tech, and as tech evolves and people's needs stay the same, that becomes even more true.

Click to expand...

Well, I can see that point of view. Sure.

Any modern camera can take great images and the cheapest mirrorless ILC on the current market would satisfy most true needs. We all know that 99.99999 percent of humaity that shoot images do so with a phone.

But technology is not stagnant at all. It has progreesed faster and further in the last 20 years than anytime in history ans we photographers are riding the wave with our gear.

Current GFX and Hassy cameras are an astounding technological achievement that we are paying good money for.

This is the Medium Format Board. We can talk about how awesome our MF gear is without shame

This is not the FF is Good Enough Forum.

Remember, I bet 90 percent of us still shoot FF or Fuji X or MFT too....

moimoi said:

DMillier said:

moimoi said:

DMillier said:

He shot this test shot on his iPhone

I can't help but feel that I had coaxed this out of any camera, much less a phone, I'd be pretty happy.

Click to expand...

Based on this sample, I think it is fair to say that big cameras are far to be doomed ;-)

Cheers,

Max

Click to expand...

Why? What do you think is wrong with it?

Click to expand...

(i) harsh processing with heavy vignetting

(ii) heavy contrast with no smooth transition

(iii) skin tones are (very) ugly

(iv) poor colors

Cell phones are probably great for sharing quick snapshots with friends & family, but as far as I am concerned that's about it.

moimoi said:

Viewed using the original size link, it look as good as any photo I've seen to me. Does it look worse than any McCurry? Not to me.

Click to expand...

Seriously!

moimoi said:

Persuade me there is a problem with it....

Click to expand...

See above. The Afghan girl contains the recipe for the "perfect" portrait, whereas the shot above is flawed on so many levels (see (i)-(iv)). No comparisons to be made!

As for McCurry, even though I am not necessarily a huge fan, he has made some superb photographs.

https://www.thecollector.com/photographs-steve-mccurry/

Click to expand...

Did you look at the image at original size (where it is credit card sized on my monitor) - the DPR default version is upsampled from a small file and all the worst for it. It looks a lot better at original size.

My response to your points:

(i) The use of vignetting is a deliberate artistic choice by Bruce and a signature feature of his landscape work. Also my own. It's not a processing flaw, it's an artistic choice. It minimises messy backgrounds and concentrates attention on the face. Much like the way McCurry likes headgear on his subjects and doorways for locations. You may not like Bruce's choices, but that is no reflection on the equipment, it's the photographer's decision.

(ii) The heavy contrast and "no smooth transitions" as you put it, are also artistic choices. You clearly don't like it; I do. Once again, this is simply an aesthetic choice

(iii) The skin tones you dislike are also an artistic choice, not a technical flaw. I think the contrast and the lighting are superb and suit the subject and the intent perfectly. Personal preferences again.

(iv) The colours look magnificent to me, Portra-like. Again personal preference.

So to conclude, your view is that because you dislike the photographer's artistic choices and personal style in a casual test shot, the equivalent of an old style polaroid lighting check, phones are no good for anything but snaps. You have said little to nothing here about the capabilities of the phone, merely listed your personal artistic taste. Which you are entitled to, but taste is not definitive of anything, yours or mine.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Close? Close is relative. A phone is close for some. If it really were "close," GFX and Hassy would be dead.

Click to expand...

Uh, not so fast with that last sentence.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/diminishing-returns-in-photography/

We are used to spending more and more for smaller and smaller improvements in tech, and as tech evolves and people's needs stay the same, that becomes even more true.

Click to expand...

Well, I can see that point of view. Sure.

Any modern camera can take great images and the cheapest mirrorless ILC on the current market would satisfy most true needs. We all know that 99.99999 percent of humaity that shoot images do so with a phone.

But technology is not stagnant at all. It has progreesed faster and further in the last 20 years than anytime in history ans we photographers are riding the wave with our gear.

Current GFX and Hassy cameras are an astounding technological achievement that we are paying good money for.

This is the Medium Format Board. We can talk about how awesome our MF gear is without shame

This is not the FF is Good Enough Forum.

Remember, I bet 90 percent of us still shoot FF or Fuji X or MFT too....

Click to expand...

The problem is that FF is more than good enough for 99% of applications. 33x44 is marginally better, no argument here.

You just compared one of the most famous candid shots in history shot on manual with almost no post processing with that posed way-over-processed and computational photography phone shot.

Historic shot taken in conflict by an actual war journalist vs routine, set up, posed, greatly manipulated and over-processed gimmick shot by a guy with a phone.

I'm sure the guy with the phone is a fine photographer and the shot is nice enough, but come on Man....

Macro guy said:

Greg7579 said:

JimKasson said:

Greg7579 said:

Close? Close is relative. A phone is close for some. If it really were "close," GFX and Hassy would be dead.

Click to expand...

Uh, not so fast with that last sentence.

https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/diminishing-returns-in-photography/

We are used to spending more and more for smaller and smaller improvements in tech, and as tech evolves and people's needs stay the same, that becomes even more true.

Click to expand...

Well, I can see that point of view. Sure.

Any modern camera can take great images and the cheapest mirrorless ILC on the current market would satisfy most true needs. We all know that 99.99999 percent of humaity that shoot images do so with a phone.

But technology is not stagnant at all. It has progreesed faster and further in the last 20 years than anytime in history ans we photographers are riding the wave with our gear.

Current GFX and Hassy cameras are an astounding technological achievement that we are paying good money for.

This is the Medium Format Board. We can talk about how awesome our MF gear is without shame

This is not the FF is Good Enough Forum.

Remember, I bet 90 percent of us still shoot FF or Fuji X or MFT too....

Click to expand...

The problem is that FF is more than good enough for 99% of applications. 33x44 is marginally better, no argument here.

Click to expand...

50MP 44x33 is marginally better that FF, for most purposes not usefully better. 100MP 44x33 is better again, perhaps enough to establish a convincing case. MP do matter a bit. Will that hold up when we get higher MP FF? We shall see eventually, but we may find ourselves back in the 44x33 is marginally better scenario, like we are now with 50MP MF.

But if you need something better than FF, even if the gap is narrow, it exists.

DMillier said:

DavidMillier said:

50MP 44x33 is marginally better that FF, for most purposes not usefully better. 100MP 44x33 is better again, perhaps enough to establish a convincing case. MP do matter a bit. Will that hold up when we get higher MP FF? We shall see eventually, but we may find ourselves back in the 44x33 is marginally better scenario, like we are now with 50MP MF.

Click to expand...

But if you need something better than FF, even if the gap is narrow, it exists.

Click to expand...

You way understate it in my opinion. If it was really like you say (and it's not) I would not buy it.

I would go all-in on Fuji X again or Leica FF.

Greg7579 said:

You just compared one of the most famous candid shots in history shot on manual with almost no post processing with that posed way-over-processed and computational photography phone shot.

Historic shot taken in conflict by an actual war journalist vs routine, set up, posed, greatly manipulated and over-processed gimmick shot by a guy with a phone.

I'm sure the guy with the phone is a fine photographer and the shot is nice enough, but come on Man....

Click to expand...

I'm so sick of seeing that endlessly repeated Afghan Girl image. It's famous and it's good, but it's not that good. The Nat Geo style is great, but the way that image is eulogised.... All McCurry's portraits look a bit like that, as do many others' similar travel work.

It's a similar scenario with Moonrise IMO. I have seen that picture so many times and I still can't work out why that is AA's money shot. It's one of the worst pictures he ever shot IMO. But you can't argue with taste. Your taste is what it is.

How the shot was achieved is not relevant to this discussion, either. How difficult it is to get a shot is a side issue. Otherwise Alex Nail would be the greatest photographer.

And talking of "over-processing", again that is a personal opinion and a taste thing. I like the Percy processing. McCurry himself is quite well known these days for his photoshop fakery isn't he.

Look, the phone is the modern day equivalent of the 110 instamatic or the Kodak Disc camera. But its capabilities are quite remarkable and this is a pretty good demonstration of how it could be used to achieve shots that are not a million miles off what once would have required 120 film cameras. I had hoped that rather than pedantically picking holes, there might have been a bit of respect for how far things have come.

I hate the things as cameras, mind you, so awkward to use.

I'll say again, if I had taken that Percy shot with a phone or any other camera, I'd have been proud of it and considered it the best picture I'd ever taken. It seems ridiculously mean spirited to trash it...

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

I agree with you really. That NG shot I've seen a thousand times and NG ran a whole article 20 years later on how it all happened....

It was a really good shot.

And yes, phones are amazing. Probably far more so than your instamatic comparison. They are a technical marvel and have gone from 0 to a million in 20 years. They have changed everything about photography and made it so common that it is like

I'm not trashing the phone guy or his shot except a I hate posed and set up street shots when the photographer claims they are candid when they are so obviously very carefully set up and multiple shots are taken with even redoes of people walking by the photographer.

Right now, there are millions of photographers trying to get attention on Instagram or Facebook or wherever with phone shots. Nothing wrong with that.

That image was nice, but I get tired of people posting phone shots on the MF Forum telling us how great they are and insinuating we don't need the cameras that we are supposed to be talking about here.

Someone posts a medium format shot here? I will never trash it.

Computational photography phone shots? Free game baby.

Take it to the phone camera Board.

I think it is funny how if someone says one sentence about GFX on the Fuji Forum, the Mods get mad and instantly move it.

Here? W spend 90 percent of our time talking about phone photography and how great FF is.

I'm interested in talking to photographers who are shooting late model GFX and Hassy cameras with a lot of interest in a few of our well-known posters here who don't shoot it but like to talk about it - like you Macro. And I know you used to shoot MF Film and are a fine photographer. Same with Erik. No problem. Enjoy it.

But we really don't need to bash our gear so much and constantly talk about how any camera can take a great shot.

If you want to talk about how great FF is, take it to the FF Board of your Brand.

I shoot high-res FF too you knw....

Greg7579 said:

I agree with you really. That NG shot I've seen a thousand times and NG ran a whole article 20 years later on how it all happened....

It was a really good shot.

And yes, phones are amazing. Probably far more so than your instamatic comparison. They are a technical marvel and have gone from 0 to a million in 20 years. They have changed everything about photography and made it so common that it is like

I'm not trashing the phone guy or his shot except a I hate posed and set up street shots when the photographer claims they are candid when they are so obviously very carefully set up and multiple shots are taken with even redoes of people walking by the photographer.

Right now, there are millions of photographers trying to get attention on Instagram or Facebook or wherever with phone shots. Nothing wrong with that.

That image was nice, but I get tired of people posting phone shots on the MF Forum telling us how great they are and insinuating we don't need the cameras that we are supposed to be talking about here.

Someone posts a medium format shot here? I will never trash it.

Computational photography phone shots? Free game baby.

Take it to the phone camera Board.

I think it is funny how if someone says one sentence about GFX on the Fuji Forum, the Mods get mad and instantly move it.

Here? W spend 90 percent of our time talking about phone photography and how great FF is.

I'm interested in talking to photographers who are shooting late model GFX and Hassy cameras with a lot of interest in a few of our well-known posters here who don't shoot it but like to talk about it - like you Macro. And I know you used to shoot MF Film and are a fine photographer. Same with Erik. No problem. Enjoy it.

But we really don't need to bash our gear so much and constantly talk about how any camera can take a great shot.

If you want to talk about how great FF is, take it to the FF Board of your Brand.

I shoot high-res FF too you knw....

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep insisting people are constantly bashing MF. I don't recall ever seeing a single post bashing MF here.

What you are really complaining about is people not worshipping MF.

You know, the people who compare MF to smaller formats to work out the real world superiority and who conclude: it is better than FF by about the amount you would expect given the sensor size differential.

For sensible people that is perfectly satisfactory, they are happy with the extra dynamic range, lower noise and extra pixels. But some people - you in the vanguard - keep insisting that it is even better than that, that MF is actually unique in defying the laws of physics. Then you like to characterise attempts at testing and confirming medium format does indeed comply with the laws of physics and practical engineering, as bashing MF.

Surely it is clear as day to almost everyone, that there is no bashing at all going on, just people trying to be realistic and keep the praise for MF at the right level, proportionate to the actual quality advantage. That's all. I wish you wouldn't keep twisting this endeavour into some kind of brand/format related 5th columnist action. Researching truth is a laudable activity, not bashing. There is no charm in hype. Everything seems to be so black and white in your head.

Anyway, we shall no doubt continue to debate this point over and over.

I'm looking forward to when Bruce shows his actual portfolio, shot with his 6x6 Hassleblad or his 6x7 Mamiya medium format film cameras.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

I agree with you really. That NG shot I've seen a thousand times and NG ran a whole article 20 years later on how it all happened....

It was a really good shot.

And yes, phones are amazing. Probably far more so than your instamatic comparison. They are a technical marvel and have gone from 0 to a million in 20 years. They have changed everything about photography and made it so common that it is like

I'm not trashing the phone guy or his shot except a I hate posed and set up street shots when the photographer claims they are candid when they are so obviously very carefully set up and multiple shots are taken with even redoes of people walking by the photographer.

Right now, there are millions of photographers trying to get attention on Instagram or Facebook or wherever with phone shots. Nothing wrong with that.

That image was nice, but I get tired of people posting phone shots on the MF Forum telling us how great they are and insinuating we don't need the cameras that we are supposed to be talking about here.

Someone posts a medium format shot here? I will never trash it.

Computational photography phone shots? Free game baby.

Take it to the phone camera Board.

I think it is funny how if someone says one sentence about GFX on the Fuji Forum, the Mods get mad and instantly move it.

Here? W spend 90 percent of our time talking about phone photography and how great FF is.

I'm interested in talking to photographers who are shooting late model GFX and Hassy cameras with a lot of interest in a few of our well-known posters here who don't shoot it but like to talk about it - like you Macro. And I know you used to shoot MF Film and are a fine photographer. Same with Erik. No problem. Enjoy it.

But we really don't need to bash our gear so much and constantly talk about how any camera can take a great shot.

If you want to talk about how great FF is, take it to the FF Board of your Brand.

I shoot high-res FF too you knw....

Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep insisting people are constantly bashing MF. I don't recall ever seeing a single post bashing MF here.

Click to expand...

They bash it by repeating hundreds of times, like you do every day, that the advantage, if any is minimal. You haven't seen it? That's because you do it every day here. I've seen it hundreds of times. It is so common that it just makes mockery of our own forum and it's equipment.

DavidMillier said:

What you are really complaining about is people not worshipping MF.

Click to expand...

Over the top. Insulting. Totally off. There is only one thing I worship.

DavidMillier said:

You know, the people who compare MF to smaller formats to work out the real world superiority and who conclude: it is better than FF by about the amount you would expect given the sensor size differential.

For sensible people that is perfectly satisfactory, they are happy with the extra dynamic range, lower noise and extra pixels.

Click to expand...

You are saying I'm not sensible. Pick your camera and shoot it. Go post on that cameras forum. Relax and have fun.

DavidMillier said:

But some people - you in the vanguard - keep insisting that it is even better than that, that MF is actually unique in defying the laws of physics. Then you like to characterise attempts at testing and confirming medium format does indeed comply with the laws of physics and practical engineering, as bashing MF.

Surely it is clear as day to almost everyone, that there is no bashing at all going on,

Click to expand...

They know David.

DavidMillier said:

just people trying to be realistic and keep the praise for MF at the right level, proportionate to the actual quality advantage. That's all. I wish you wouldn't keep twisting this endeavour into some kind of brand/format related 5th columnist action. Researching truth is a laudable activity, not bashing. There is no charm in hype. Everything seems to be so black and white in your head.

Anyway, we shall no doubt continue to debate this point over and over

Click to expand...

No it's getting tiresome. I've had several texts, emails and PMs telling me to block and ignore you. That is about to happen.

Post some images David, and stop fixating on a sensor size you don't like and lecturing us about our gear. Go out and shoot your GFX 50... It's a great camera and deserved some attention...

Or switch to Fuji APSC or FF like I told you 5 months ago. Be happy with your photography. Have fun.

DavidMillier said:

I'm looking forward to when Bruce shows his actual portfolio, shot with his 6x6 Hassleblad or his 6x7 Mamiya medium format film cameras.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

Click to expand...

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

DMillier said:

Greg7579 said:

You just compared one of the most famous candid shots in history shot on manual with almost no post processing with that posed way-over-processed and computational photography phone shot.

Historic shot taken in conflict by an actual war journalist vs routine, set up, posed, greatly manipulated and over-processed gimmick shot by a guy with a phone.

I'm sure the guy with the phone is a fine photographer and the shot is nice enough, but come on Man....

Click to expand...

I'm so sick of seeing that endlessly repeated Afghan Girl image. It's famous and it's good, but it's not that good. The Nat Geo style is great, but the way that image is eulogised.... All McCurry's portraits look a bit like that, as do many others' similar travel work.

Click to expand...

But that's no reason for the other shot to be so overprocessed.

DavidMillier said:

It's a similar scenario with Moonrise IMO. I have seen that picture so many times and I still can't work out why that is AA's money shot.

Click to expand...

Is it? Many sources suggest it is the now-popular view of Yosemite Valley that he is most associated with. His photographs are the reason that it's such a popular photo spot now and every Joe or Jane has one in their picture catalogue.

Failing that, I can offer you The Tetons and the Snake River, or any of his shots of the Jeffrey Pine. There are shots that are recognisably Adams, and I would argue Moonrise is not one of them as it is a complete one-off. If you didn't know it's Adams, you might not guess it.

DavidMillier said:

It's one of the worst pictures he ever shot IMO. But you can't argue with taste. Your taste is what it is.

How the shot was achieved is not relevant to this discussion, either. How difficult it is to get a shot is a side issue.

Click to expand...

I do take it into account when I judge images. As one of many criteria.

DavidMillier said:

Otherwise Alex Nail would be the greatest photographer.

And talking of "over-processing", again that is a personal opinion and a taste thing. I like the Percy processing. McCurry himself is quite well known these days for his photoshop fakery isn't he.

Look, the phone is the modern day equivalent of the 110 instamatic or the Kodak Disc camera. But its capabilities are quite remarkable and this is a pretty good demonstration of how it could be used to achieve shots that are not a million miles off what once would have required 120 film cameras. I had hoped that rather than pedantically picking holes, there might have been a bit of respect for how far things have come.

I hate the things as cameras, mind you, so awkward to use.

I'll say again, if I had taken that Percy shot with a phone or any other camera, I'd have been proud of it and considered it the best picture I'd ever taken. It seems ridiculously mean spirited to trash it...

Click to expand...

It's not the shot we're taking issue with, it's the processing.

You bring ethics into this. I have this to say: Don't bring a random shot, ask us to judge it, and then call us mean-spirited when we do. That's on you, not us.

Well ok, but if I look at the original size link, not the version blown up by DPR, I see no trace of any alleged over processing. And ignoring that, overprocessing is a taste thing anyway. I'm fine with it.

DMillier said:

Well ok, but if I look at the original size link, not the version blown up by DPR, I see no trace of any alleged over processing. And ignoring that, overprocessing is a taste thing anyway. I'm fine with it.

Click to expand...

Me too since I'm guilty of it sometimes.

Here's a couple of successful and well known images:

A Goa'ld glowing eyes McCurry

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Steve-McCurry-Looking-East/dp/0714876380

Norman Parkinson portrait

https://www.all-about-photo.com/images/photographer/P/PHOT-norman-parkinson-1.jpg

Any less processed that the Percy shot? I don't think so.

Still think overly pedantic standards are being applied to Bruce's phone shot. If that had been shot on MF and processed the same, it would have been glowingly received.

Shot by the same photographer? No, but could have been if examined blind:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81zDkvLOzYL._SL1500_.jpg

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...1d5eeb7730f/Bhutan-2016-(14).jpg?format=2500w

McCurry or Percy?

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...7-b160-70b5313a2223/Lalibela.jpg?format=2500w

and an example of a real medium format look to boot...

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

McCurry is a legend - famous and a portrait master like few others.

He didn't produce those by walking around and snapshooting. That is uber-high end portrait work with all the bells and whistles. He is a portrait artist and knows lighting, posing, makeup, clothes .... everything.

You might as well be posting links to work by all the greats from all the specialties - F1, motocross, NASCAR, macro, baseball, football, soccer, gymnastics, mountaineering, surfing, BIF, landscape, street, at least a hundred top portrait masters, fashion, haute couture, product, cars, food, wedding, horse racing, equestrian and many more specialties.

Unless they are shooting MF why post it here?

We should start a thread .... Post a link to your favorite five famous photographers.

DMillier said:

Well ok, but if I look at the original size link, not the version blown up by DPR, I see no trace of any alleged over processing. And ignoring that, overprocessing is a taste thing anyway. I'm fine with it.

Click to expand...

The versions of Moonrise that go for the big bucks would be considered overprocessed by some. Have you seen a straight print from that negative?

I vaguely remember an interview with McCurry when he was asked what is the secret of his kind of travel portraiture and he replied "two things":

• wrap your subject's face in some kind of headgear, hat, scarf etc, people look better, mysterious
• stand them in a doorway or in a room next to a doorway, it provides the perfect natural portrait light.

But given later revelations about his post processing methods, this casts all of the documentary authenticity of his images into at least some doubt in my mind. Still good pictures, though, that can never be taken away. The Nat Geo house style works a treat.

ps

I've now acquired copies of the Nasa moonlandings redux book and Mayer's Classic war world II aircraft. There's beautiful photography to be found in all sorts of unexpected places.

--
Photo of the day: https://whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day/
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2022 - website rebuilt, updated and back in action)
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

Well ok, but if I look at the original size link, not the version blown up by DPR, I see no trace of any alleged over processing. And ignoring that, overprocessing is a taste thing anyway. I'm fine with it.

Click to expand...

The versions of Moonrise that go for the big bucks would be considered overprocessed by some. Have you seen a straight print from that negative?

Click to expand...

The negative looked quite "flat" even with his specific development. And would produce a flat print if not exposed as intended.

AA changed the way he printed Moonrise over the years. It became much more dramatic, with higher over all contrast and lots of local contrast enhancement.

But I don't think the concept "straight print" has any real meaning.

Knowing the characteristics of the film (or sensor), knowing an exposure is going to create a specified range of tones on that, then knowing that the printing/enlarging process will involve "extensive" manipulation/treatment of those tones to achieve a particular, intended appearance on the photo paper is the photographer's art.

That a particular negative, using a generic exposure, produces a print image other than that intended by the photographer is irrelevant.

I know that many of my shots are only starting points. They have potential to be the image I want, but not at the time I shoot them. It was that way with film and is certainly that way with digital RAW.

Rich42 said:

JimKasson said:

DMillier said:

Well ok, but if I look at the original size link, not the version blown up by DPR, I see no trace of any alleged over processing. And ignoring that, overprocessing is a taste thing anyway. I'm fine with it.

Click to expand...

The versions of Moonrise that go for the big bucks would be considered overprocessed by some. Have you seen a straight print from that negative?

Click to expand...

The negative looked quite "flat" even with his specific development. And would produce a flat print if not exposed as intended.

Click to expand...

And the straight print looks very flat, with the sky quite light.

Rich42 said:

AA changed the way he printed Moonrise over the years.

Click to expand...

Yes. He also modified the neg with selenium intensifier.

Rich42 said:

It became much more dramatic, with higher over all contrast and lots of local contrast enhancement.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Rich42 said:

But I don't think the concept "straight print" has any real meaning.

Knowing the characteristics of the film (or sensor), knowing an exposure is going to create a specified range of tones on that, then knowing that the printing/enlarging process will involve "extensive" manipulation/treatment of those tones to achieve a particular, intended appearance on the photo paper is the photographer's art.

That a particular negative, using a generic exposure, produces a print image other than that intended by the photographer is irrelevant.

I know that many of my shots are only starting points. They have potential to be the image I want, but not at the time I shoot them. It was that way with film and is certainly that way with digital RAW.

Click to expand...

Right.

AA would have gone wildly over processed if he had had 10 minutes in PS.