78962 wrote in post #17194409
I really just am thinking about people who took pics in the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s and they really just went out there with a camera and took a photo of something interesting. I'm not talking about not creatively developing (either in the darkroom or lightroom) but they weren't adding a ton of stuff with photoshop.
Well, not with Photoshop because it didn't exist, however there were plenty of people making images by combining parts of several negatives onto one print in the darkroom. It was no different to today apart from requiring a LOT more skill, so it was less prevalent simply because it was less easy to do. People have been manipulating their images almost as long as photography has existed, it didn't start when Photoshop came along.
Personally, I tend to keep my images pretty straight but I have no problem with those who wish to create fantasy images from several shots. This is an artistic medium and it is the end result that matters, not how you got there and certainly not how realistic the end result is. There are many painters out there who produce work intended to portray the subject as it was, that doesn't make the likes of Dali or Picasso any less of an artist because they chose to produce work that was not accurate to reality. Why should photography, as a means of artistic expression, be any different? If somebody wants to be a purist and produce straight work, that is their choice. However, they should accept that other artistic views exist and there is nothing wrong, or "cheating", about producing work that involves considerable manipulation, if that is what somebody wants to do. That works both ways of course.
Obviously different standards apply to photojournalism, where altering the image is a big no-no.