I'm in that camp to some degree too. I pretty much have to have complete control over exposure (shutter speed and f-stop) and focus, but I'm not arrogant enough to think my way is the only way. LOL, heck, I'm not good enough to be arrogant.

Hahaha, I use a 62" DLP display for some stuff, but it needs some serious color correction for general purpose use. For serious image review I have to use test prints (assuming that prints are the end product).

 

[QUOTE=Penforhire,Feb 4 2009, 01:08 PM]I have read about purists who would not physically move a twig or piece of trash in their landscape work.

 

Red, you can upload an actual custom "tone mapping" curve to the D70s (and D70 I believe?). It is a rarely discussed feature except among those trying to extract the best in-camera JPEG's or to work around a common exposure offset (Nikon's calibration was weak for some reason). I use a slight variant of what was popularly known as the White Wedding curve.

 

My point was that RAW format is technically, imcomplete, and REQUIRES post processing. Capturing a RAW is NOT a photograph yet. It's like saying a bag of flour = pizza. It doesn't, as it's not finished.

One more thing about Ansel Adams, he was a much better "post processor" than he was a photographer.

 

[QUOTE=NFRs2000NYC,Feb 5 2009, 01:13 AM] My point was that RAW format is technically, imcomplete, and REQUIRES post processing.

 

I don't know why everyone is so caught up wth this. who cares about film right now. everything is digital and the truth is you have to process every shot. take RAW shots and turn them in to your editor or news agency, they will toss out your assignments if they don't bitch you out first.

purist? in my opinion that's just someone who is unwilling to keep up with the times or too stubborn to accept the changes in industry. since digital, things have been advancing pretty fast and as a photographer you must study and keep up wtih everything that's going on within your field if not all of them.

 

Even negative film could be pushed or pulled. And your choice of temperature alone could be considered post-processing, no?

 

I agree with bluextc. There is no point involving film in our discussions, unless they are ABOUT film.

1)Film and digital are NOT the same thing, although they both use cameras.

2)As a general rule, most photographers no longer care about film. Film is nothing but a novelty. I am one of them. I like a nice b&w film print now and again, but I don't care for it. I don't care that you get more tonal range. I don't care that it's "pure". Film is ancient and it's like statue carving. Yes, it's impressive that a human can carve a beautiful shape out of marble, but I like the one done on a CNC machine just as much.

Give it up. Film is dead. If you like film, great, enjoy it. However, there is absolutely no point in bringing film into our discussions because it simply....doesn't matter or apply.

As for the "purist" comments....BS to them all, "purists" are nothing more than people that refuse to acknowledge technological improvements. They are everywhere.

The guys that say "true" sports cars were the MG's and the Sprites. The guys that use a hammer instead of a drill because "men" use hammers. Etc. You don't ride a horse to work, there is no point in knocking technology.

 

I fall much more on your side of the argument but even I will agree there comes a point when an overprocessed image is no longer "photography." No, I can't define that threshold with any satisfaction but it exists, at least for me. If you agree then you are a purist at some level.

 

i feel that if youre going to put forth some effort into shooting, then you owe it to yourself to go the whole way and do some post work to bring out the pictures in all of its glory. this is especially true if youre going to show off your work in a thread, or portfolio. the reality is we see a ton of threads with the phrase "photoshoot" in it, so we click on it only to be disappointed. no one wants that.