Digital photography w/light room, photoshop etc....Are we selling ourselves short?

There is no way to get any sort of image without some process and the result will always depend on the settings used in the process. So there is always some manipulation. Without it, no image would exist. This goes for analog, for digital, for the images in your brain. None of them are unfiltered representatives of the light outside.

In the days of film and film prints contrast and saturation was increased/decreased by different papers and the quality of the lens also helped with contrast. It's now much easier to fine tune the desired end look of an image through software instead of specific papers or very high end lenses (leica). Nothing is being sold short.

The best film prints were well managed during developing of the photo in a dark room, same goes when using Lightroom.

The question implies a complete failure to understand how film images were produced. There is no difference between a wet darkroom and a digital darkroom in principle, so the suggestion of a "principle" that has been lost is irrelevant.

rral22 wrote in post #14052988
The question implies a complete failure to understand how film images were produced. There is no difference between a wet darkroom and a digital darkroom in principle, so the suggestion of a "principle" that has been lost is irrelevant.

To the best of my knowledge, you could not clone in something like a tree or a person, building and, such in the wet darkroom. Or do the opposite by removin them

Then I'd suggest your "knowledge" is quite limited.

PeteD wrote in post #14053147
To the best of my knowledge, you could not clone in something like a tree or a person, building and, such in the wet darkroom. Or do the opposite by removin them

PeteD wrote in post #14053147
To the best of my knowledge, you could not clone in something like a tree or a person, building and, such in the wet darkroom. Or do the opposite by removin them

Take a close look at http://www.geh.org/tas​chen/m197601160001.jpg

How much editing do you think was done on that image. Bear in mind that it was originally printed in 1858.

krb wrote in post #14053250
Take a close look at http://www.geh.org/tas​chen/m197601160001.jpg

How much editing do you think was done on that image. Bear in mind that it was originally printed in 1858.

I know! I know! Love this photo (or is it?) And your point, spot on!

sjones wrote in post #14053304
Love this photo (or is it?)

Twas "photographed from life"

krb wrote in post #14053340
Twas "photographed from life"

That it was, and it is a photograph.

"Looks" like about 90% of it.

PixelMagic wrote in post #14053170
Then I'd suggest your "knowledge" is quite limited.

Aren't we all? Always someone with a lot more experience or knowledge.

PeteD wrote in post #14053360
Aren't we all? Always someone with a lot more experience or knowledge.

Perhaps, but then its wise to not make such declarative statements when having incomplete knowledge. Image editing and manipulation occurred long before Photoshop existed:
Stalin airbrushes Trotsky

Abraham Lincoln composite

Some more links, a bit redundant, but interesting:

http://www.fourandsix.​com/photo-tampering-history

http://gajitz.com …t-literally-made-history/

http://evanbaines.blog​spot.com …ted-history-of-photo.html

PixelMagic wrote in post #14053452
Perhaps, but then its wise to not make such declarative statements when having incomplete knowledge. Image editing and manipulation occurred long before Photoshop existed:
Stalin airbrushes Trotsky

Abraham Lincoln composite

I believe I have stated hat already.

You said:

The posted links disprove your claim. Perhaps you believe that magazines like Playboy, for example, never edited or modified their images.