These are nice sentiments of a bygone era. I preached them religiously myself even though it was a total lie. We overexposed film to get a bit more contrast and color. Underexposed slide film a tad for the same reason. It was a necessary lie due to film cost, lab costs, time switching bodies, lenses and film out. Film processing was tweaked to compensate for the color characteristics of the film used. Dodging, burning, full frame negative carriers vs custom vs stock, time of exposure... Filters, filters, filters everywhere.
If I shoot a shot for black and white now I still have to change it into black and white. We can afford to make mistakes now. Take risks and adjust on the fly. Or purposely take shots to be tweaked in post. We no longer are hampered by having the right speed roll of film in the right body with the right lens. The old rules, old ways, old mindset no longer need to be embraced to survive the world of photography.
Now it may never be your cup of tea but that does not invalidate what can be done today. I am not suggesting we can just release the shutter like a machine gun for no reason. Just saying we have an entirely new set of tools at our disposal. Believe me, this is a complete 180 degree turn from the way I shot and breathed photography until 6 or so years ago.
What was captured? The image in the camera or the image framed on a wall?
:scratch2:
QUOTE]
Amen.... Even Ansel was a Master of the darkroom. How many times have you taken a photo and when viewed the colors, contrast or whatever are not what they were when you released the shutter. I read an interview of Adams done by Editor Mike Stensvold and Adams was delighted that the then new scanning process could get more from his negatives than he could in his darkroom. He even left some negatives to a university for that purpose. I think he envisioned the future and knew it would change the path of photography.