topic 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams in General Discussion

1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:21:25 GMT

I am reading Ansel Adam's autobiography. I recommend it to you. Significant controversy regarding photography and photographic manipulation is not new. In 1932 there was a huge and serious divide over the subject. Some in leadership and sponsorship of museums thought photography had no business being displayed displayed there, and had no use for the work of Ansel Adams and others who ascribed to the f/64's groups' vision. LIFE magazine, starting in 1936 and the f/64 group from 1932 and their supporters really were huge in raising the status of the photograph as art.

I am NOT posting this to stir up debate, but to encourage more reflection our own photography and to keep our current controversies in perspective. They aren't new. I don't have a crystal ball like those in the f/64 seemed to have. They were very confident that their "Purist" and/or "Realist" photography would outlast that of the other group that Ansel Adams dubbed the "Pictorialists".

It makes me more curious myself to know what elements of photography have withstood the test of time and what will do so in the far future. Henri Cartier-Bresson comes to mind, for one.

In 1932 there were the "Realists" with Ansel Adams and others with their f/64 club and manifesto:

"The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself." https://dawntomlincreativeartist.wordpress.com/2021/03/02/lens-work-ansel-adams-and-the-f64-group/.

Ansel Adams wrote that manifesto and dubbed some others as "Pictorialists":

"The production of the “Pictorialist,” on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts."

Photographers made a living in Yosemite taking photos of folks in Mirror Lake, processing and selling them. There was nothing wrong with that, of course. Ansel Adams was right there working alongside them taking photographs at the same time as them and had a different goal and effect on photography today.

I am certainly no Ansel Adams, and never will be in his league nor many of those that post here. But I find his work and life personally inspiring to be challenged to explore more new things, and try to capture photographs that evoke thoughts and feelings - even if only for me.

I think this site helps inspire all of us to improve our own skills and art and encourages us all to work to capture photographs that inspire both us and others. I thank Canon and those the many participants of the site. I have learned much from you and continue to do so.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 21:29:24 GMT

I wrote this a while back but it's germane to the overall conversation.

The birth of photography, post production and its evolution

Its strange that for some individuals the topic can be so divisive when it comes up in conversation. Having a collaborative, open minded conversation can be challenging. Some believe that SOOC is the only true way to achieve a final image, others shoot strictly RAW because they believe it will give you the ability to produce a rendering close to what they saw visually through the viewfinder in post. For each group, both are correct!

The facts and history on this topic seem to be long forgotten though, post production enhancement has long been a part of photography.

Enhancing images began over 170 years ago in the darkroom or “wet lab”. For historical value post production began in the 1840s–1850s. Retouching negatives tinting and hand coloring were common practices for daguerreotypes (Invented by Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre in 1839, the daguerreotype was the first public photographic process, producing unique, incredibly detailed positive images on silver-plated copper sheets. William Henry Fox Talbot utilized paper negatives that allowed for alterations and enhancements (patented as the calotype process in 1841).

With the introduction of the Kodak camera (1888 by George Eastman) a good portion of post-processing moved away from the photographer to commercial labs but editing continued as part of the photo finishing" process. Kodak used filters to achieve proper color rendition when going to print. Those individuals that possessed the financial resources had the ability to establish labs and learn/use many of the techniques commercial labs used in the post production process. Was that deception?

• 1889: The paper film was replaced with transparent celluloid roll film.
• 1900: The "Brownie" camera was introduced, making photography even more affordable for the general public.
• 1925: The Leica I was released, popularizing the 35mm format, others followed.
• 1986: Disposable, single-use cameras were introduced.

1950s–1980s retouching and airbrushing made its way into the post processing process. Manual techniques were used to edit photos for publication(s) such as airbrushing to remove, alter, or improve images.

As we continued to move into the 19th century photographers used techniques such as dodging and burning to adjust light exposure on specific areas of the print and the combination of multiple negatives to create a single image (in today’s world, stacking).

When the introduction of digital photography first became available to consumers in the late 1980s to early 1990s photographers in the US had the Dycam Model 1 available to them if they had the resources to purchase one. (digital cameras were commonly available by 1995).

Adobe Photoshop saw the opportunity and seized it releasing PS 1.0 releasing it in February 1990. It was developed by Thomas and John Knoll (licensed by Adobe in 1988). The only limitation was that the original version was released only for Apple computers. At that time the digital darkroom was born.

With the advancement digital photo processing it alleviated photographers of many hours in the manual wet darkroom completing labor-intensive processes and the post-production necessities. To this day I still remember how much I enjoyed the smell of the lab but for anyone that processed film to paper, while enjoyable you know how long it took to bring a quality image to paper.

Within the evolution of photography, the simple truth is the computer has replaced the wet darkroom. All or most of the elements used in a wet darkroom, burning and dodging, align/straighten, cropping, adjusting exposure, refining skin tones (filters) and contrast have moved from a stainless-steel film developing tank, easel and enlarger to a desktop.

This advancement to a digital darkroom gave photographers the ability to realize their vision, produce professional results and achieve a rendering that closely resembles what they observed through their viewfinder. It also greatly improved their workflow and the pace at which the final results could be achieved benefiting both the photographer and the consumer.

Most photographers shoot RAW for only one reason; it gives them more information/data to work with in the post-processing stage, to attain the best rendering of what they saw through the viewfinder. The majority of professional photographers now consider that the image captured in a digital camera is only half of the process in achieving a true rendering and their vision.

The rational for retouching is to achieve one goal; accurately depict the image capture. As an example, flesh tones, remove facial imperfections and improving the overall look and feel of the image, enabling photographer the ability to create professional quality visual content. If you are a professional it is not an aspiration to achieve this goal, if you desire to maintain or build a successful business, it is what the client expects. Whether professional or hobbyist digital post production gives the photographer the ability to achieve their visual impact.

There is a significant difference between post-production enhancements and photo manipulation. One is finishing an image, leaving the original content intact but using improved tools to achieve your original rendering, vision and produce professional results.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 23:26:05 GMT

Marc,

I intentionally did not bring up the transitory post-processing debate of today. I will be very sad if this thread gets mired in that muck.

My point was for everyone to consider for themselves, what for them is important and, also to delve into what has withstood the test of time in photography, and what they want to invest themselves into as personal goals in photography.

Ansel Adams and Henri Cartier-Bresson disagreed.

Cartier-Bresson said "The world is going to pieces and people like [Ansel] Adams and [Edward] Weston are photographing rocks!"

Adams is said to have replied "“There is a real, social significance in a rock” and added that he would never apologize for photographing them because they can be so beautiful.

Who was "right" there? They were both right for themselves, of course, and we're better off that they lived and did their thing.

Adams mentions Cartier-Bresson's art very respectfully in his autobiography.

Ansel Adams as a "Purist" and "Realist" used every manipulation trick at his disposal in his dark room to create his art. I have no idea what his opinion about digital post-processing would be, of course. Nor does anyone else as we cannot ask him.

My journey is my journey. I expect on this site to be treated with respect and to do the same for others and to admit when I'm wrong (which is a lot more often than I would prefer!).

We have too much "we-they" in the world around us. Some people seem addicted to being polarized and polarizing.

Polarized thinking and stifling of other's points of view helped lead to the fall of the Roman Empire. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged version, I admit) has some interesting history lessons in it.

Hopefully we can be mature enough to encourage and respect others making their art the way that they want to even if we think it's wrong. Doing things wholly wrongly has led to innovation tons of times..

The current post-processing debate, I predict (if it hasn't already) will soon evolve soon into how much AI is "ok" and "not ok". Again my point is there always were and will always will be disagreements. We should expect that and we should recognize that maybe they don't really matter all that much. Today's debate, I predict, won't matter in 20 years and by that time there be another supposedly huge topic to disagree about..

I pray we disagree and debate amicably, and keep it in perspective. Let's work to make beautiful art that we enjoy and maybe share with some others, too, and encourage those around to learn for themselves what they enjoy and consider important, and when they do learn it, that they are welcomed and nurtured here.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 23:46:51 GMT

There is no disagreement @SignifDigits there are individuals perspectives and when content is posted I believe it is open to discussion. Hopefully that is equally respected.

Neither perspective is right or wrong, very little in this world is that definitive.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 01:37:00 GMT

Certainly Marc. The facts that you presented are all true and interesting and valid, but I was intending that it would be a bit wide of the target of the topic I was intending with the original post. Of course, I may have missed the target myself and invited yet another discussion of photographic technology, but that wasn't my intent.

Per your tag line I was aiming to create explore an idea for personal consideration and contemplation - timelessness of some photographs and photographic concepts and how and why they touch the human soul, I guess. And how all art is still subjective and personal so that we'll never all agree.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

Tintype_18 — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 12:49:54 GMT

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One likes landscapes; another likes flowers, another likes wildlife, ad infinitum. One of my favorites is a Japanese immigrant who went by the name of George Masa. He fell in love with the Great Smoky mountains. His photographs and activity of others were influential in the formation of the national park. Have read his biography twice.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 15:21:57 GMT

@Tintype_18 "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So true, and, it seems, a potential cause for debate and disagreement.

Interesting that in the Adams autobiography he quotes Charles Sheeler and says it is a "prophetic statement". "..isn't it remarkable how photography has advanced without improving?" I found it very thought-provoking, and not 100% sure how I feel about it.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 18:34:36 GMT

@SignifDigits wrote:

So true, and, it seems, a potential cause for debate and disagreement.

Is it debate and disagreement or a lack understanding that each photographer has a vision or style. That single conversation as to what is "manipulation" has been ongoing for decades.

@SignifDigits wrote:
defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium

This statement "defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium" is still valid today. With the innovation of RAW format I believe in 2004 (Adobe) photographers were given the ability to manage limitations of the photographic medium, to achieve the actual likeness of the image captured. It's like everything else, photography is continuing to evolve. Case in point, I no longer have to get out and crank the handle on my car to get it to start.

It's simple evolution.

I believe the challenge as it relates to the topic is that some lack acceptance for each individuals choice on how they want to present what they captured to the public. AI will add a whole new layer to the conversation but again there really is no right or wrong position, only individual choice. If an image is SOOC or run through post that is a personal choice, it is perplexing that it comes to a point where there is debate and disagreement because of the methods a person (artist) has chosen to present their capture. Because as John stated "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and as it relates to photography some people view an image as art while the person standing next to the views it as a snapshot.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 00:23:06 GMT

Marc,

I think we are in agreement for the most part.

But has photography actually evolved/improved or has it only evolved/advanced as Adams quoted Sheeler as saying? There are all sorts of advancements, certainly. Who and how, for instance, has really improved on Bresson-Cartier's photography and how, exactly would we even define that improvement? Color film was an advancement, but was color film really an "improvement"? If so why don't we computer colorize all of the B&W work from the past and improve it? Or why don't we sharpen every great photo from the past? We could certainly do so. I think this idea of "improvement" versus "advancement" deserves some consideration.

Photography has certainly evolved/advanced and will always do so. But has it evolved/improved? I'm not quite sure. An unlimited budget buying every physical, electronic, digital and software improvement and having a lifetime of development of skill at using that stuff doesn't mean improvement to me.

I find the emotional "we/them" energy behind the SOOC vs "modern manipulation" discussion a bit pedantic and nonsensical. I'm sure I am missing something - I usually do. But how does either end of that spectrum REALLY move the art of photography forward? Personally I consider "graphic art" separate and as NOT photography. Art, certainly, and beautiful but not the fundamental photographic art of deep, powerful, emotional gut-wrenching life-changing stuff - some journalistic, some artistic. I see digital art as a separate, not integrated, study of photography. Where does one define that line from photography to graphic art? That seems to be the debate now to me. I will leave the marketplace to decide commercially and each artist to decide personally, and not put much energy into proselytizing one to my own personal point of view, nor fight for either polemic.

I would, and I do, have strong feelings about misrepresentation of facts in photography and video. I hope we all agree on that. I'm not talking about pasting someone in the family into a snapshot, but adding voices, words, images to create a lie with the intent to sway people to one's belief. That is most definitely happening today and something we should, in my opinion, all rise up against.

But if an artist wants to wholly embrace graphic arts and AI into their photography-based art, fine by me as long as it is not manipulating the truth and telling a lie that hurts someone else. Most of us watch TV and movies knowing it it is fictional (a lie that we all know is a lie) and enjoy it. And sometimes that is art that moves us to improve, even. Bresson-Cartier thought photography should change society for the better, Adams thought natural beauty would help people in another way. Thankfully, I'm not in that league and don't have to take a position on that topic.

I can't help but think of Galaxy Quest when an alien race received a TV scifi series and thought they were "historical records" and were wholly dismayed to find out the TV series was a fiction - a lie. If someone wants to only be limited to SOOC, fine by me, also. What harm does either end of the spectrum harm the art of photography? What am I missing?

Of course, perhaps to your point of manipulation, yes nearly all photography involves manipulation - setting the shutter speed and aperture are manipulating the photons on the film or sensor. Asking someone to smile or causing wildlife to look your direction is manipulation. Photography would not exist without chemical manipulation and mechanical manipulation. Now it just includes digital manipulation.

I suppose one could say that every photograph is a lie - a fiction. It is certainly NOT identical to what we have in our brain. And since no two sets of eyes and brains are alike it is a personal fiction or "story" of sorts, perhaps?

Today I had a rainbow end in my back yard. I mostly missed catching it on film. But even if I did (and this is the second time I've had this happen - thankfully the first time I got some better snaps) I can assure you that the photograph doesn't capture what I saw. Macro, which you excel at, catches MORE than I can see with my eyes - a whole new world. Same with astro. Both very cool and fun.

I differ with your definition of an argument in your footer, by the way. Arguments, to me, have always been that of those used in debate, just the logical presentation of a point of view. Webster defines argument as " primarily as a coherent series of reasons or statements intended to support a point of view."

I get your point, of course, and believe we should all welcome discussion and arguments of a respectful, coherent non-condescending nature. Arguments that include the immaturity and insecurity that are most often communicated as superiority and pride are an exchange of things more base than just ignorance in my opinion.

And if I have (as sometimes happens when people write words) implied superiority and/or pride, I certainly apologize. I am full of all sorts of ignorance in all sorts of areas.

I plan to not get into manipulation anymore. I think there are much larger ideas than those that deserve my attention. I want to personally capture more beauty somehow. As I age that is important to me. I don't have grand designs of being Bresson-Cartier, Adams, Stiegliz, Strand, Weston, etc. That's enough for me to work on for the rest of my days.

Is there a way to improve photography - not just our photographs? Or is that concept a myth and/or oxymoron and/or fairy dust? I certainly don't know the answer. Interesting but ponder I guess. I know I have too much to learn and not enough time to learn it, and am thankful to be on my personal journey.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 12:33:47 GMT

It is important to make a distinction when discussing the topic of how an individual resolves restoring the actualities and limitations of photographic image to resemble what they viewed with the human eye. Their goal or desire to achieve a rendering that is a fair representation and true to the subject matter photographed.

Definition:

Enhancement is the process or result of improving the quality, value, attractiveness, or strength of something.
Manipulation is the act of controlling, influencing, or managing something to your advantage, often in a clever, unfair, or dishonest way.

The two definitions are for the most part are worlds apart as it pertains to a photographic image.

I find the emotional "we/them" energy behind the SOOC vs "modern manipulation" discussion a bit pedantic and nonsensical.

That is because individuals look at the extremes, they have lost the gray and are only concerned with the black and white (pun on words intended). The challenge is that we forget or decide to ignore that there is a middle ground.

We do agree that the energy behind the SOOC vs modern manipulation as a discussion is nonsensical, I am more of the belief that it is irrational. Simply by the definition, manipulation if you modify the content of an image, it is no longer “authentic”.

Color film was an advancement, but was color film really an "improvement"?

That question circles back to John’s statement, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Was it an advancement, absolutely but it is subjective as to whether or not it was an improvement. My true love with always be B&W but color is an alternative option. Like the discussion regarding photographic enhancement choosing to use color is an individual’s choice. By using color does it improve the image visually? Some may say yes, others will say no it is not an improvement.

Personally, I do not change the image I have captured beyond what is consider the "norm" for post. Exposure, contrast, and saturation are part of my post production only if the image falls short of what I visually saw in my subject, many are SOOC. I do not manipulate an image by adding or removing any content from the image.

All that being said, the author of an image has the freedom of choice to represent their content however they feel appropriate. Their audience has the right to choose if they enjoy the content as presented and conclude whether it is a photographic image or something derived from a photographic image.

In the end though the important part is that it really doesn’t matter, as the audience do you find the image that is presented pleasing regardless of how it was processed? That is ultimately the authors primary goal.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 13:53:28 GMT

Marc,

Thanks. Unfortunately the word "manipulation" has a wide range of meanings. My thinking for "manipulation" was more in line with Webeter's fist and second definitions - 1) "In physical contexts, it means to treat or operate on something manually or by mechanical means, usually with skill", 2a) "to manage or utilize skillfully". I think you are thinking of 2b) "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage" or 3) "to change by deceptive or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose".

Interesting how we can even use the same words and have totally different thoughts in our heads isn't it? No wonder it is so challenging to communicate!

I think the "norm" is pretty ill-defined and subject to change on short notice as most norm and mores are. We are no longer shocked at seeing a woman's ankles or seeing bra ads or TV and are rightly shocked when women are verbally abused by their husbands. Change is a constant, the only variable is direction and slope.

Thus, I expect the "norm" to move towards "anything goes" on digital manipulation of digital photographs.

I am leaning towards the personal view that anything that could have been done in a dark room in the 1940s or 50s is on the table for a picture that I would publish and/or share as my personal photographic work. Anything beyond that is for graphic art, such as for funsies or posted on a web site. I have posted a few of those here, so I'm not above adding a sky , but I don't think I would print it out and put it on my wall to display. I am not posting here for accolades or awards, just to share in the fun of things and to learn as people point out how to improve my photos (as you did once for me - thank you very much for that).

One of the things I think about a lot in the area of "improvement" is the cameras that are in more hands via phones. A photograph at one time was an item of some significance and investment of time and money. That is no longer true. Is this an improvement or not I wonder?

Are people dulled into thinking that all of their snapshots rise to the level of photographic art? I sort of fell into that trap at one point myself. Or is it a great thing that they now have in their hands the potential to make the same quality of art of a Weston or Cartier-Bresson?

I'm leaning towards there never was and never will be true improvements in the art of photography only advancements. Along the lines of saying there have never really been any improvements in the art of painting. There will artists that use the medium in new and novel ways that move people emotionally, certainly. French impressionism comes to mind, but you could add Georgia O'keeffe, Andy Warhol, Salvador Dali, and many others. They didn't improve painting per-se, but used painting as an art medium for new expressions.

I think photographic-based graphic art is in it's infancy and assume there will be be those starving artists that will push new boundaries to communicate new things in that area of art. I hope so.

I also hope that the art of photography doesn't get wholly lost and absorbed into graphic art. I don't think it will. Come to think of it I don't think it really CAN. It's an art form, and as such cannot truly get lost.

I still wonder what more "pure" photography has to offer and personally want to see more art being produced there. Not that I'm capable of anything more than what I put on my walls for myself.

I do wish there were more interest in that area. Even college 101 wholly integrates digital art into their first classes. I can see that. They have an obligation to teach the journeyman photographer the skills needed to make a living. But I sense a waning of social interest in purely art photography. Perhaps digital photography is the "shiny new toy" - certainly is in the camera world. I love that some people are keeping tintype and ambrotype alive and that many on this site are still using film. These are dying arts that ought not to truly die IMO.

Again, I'm not denegrating digital graphics art blended with photography, but I do see them as separated.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 14:45:01 GMT

I appreciate and respect the perspective @SignifDigits.

With regard to the definition of manipulation, I used the ones that applied to the conversation and 2b and 3 I thought nailed the context of what we were discussing.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:35:01 GMT

And I appreciate your perspective and what I see as healthy dialogue and discussion. I'm curious to see what the next 5 years will bring us!

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

Tintype_18 — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 11:28:08 GMT

As reference to my statement, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," my take on this is a photo of an exceptionally rare flower, Ruth's Golden Aster, which in only found in the Ocoee and Hiwassee River corridors in East Tennessee. The flower is a brilliant yellow but IMO, B&W wouldn't do it justice.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 12:20:17 GMT

Agreed, nor would B&W have captured this rainbow in my back yard.

So color film was an important advancement, and perhaps a significant improvement in that we can photograph some beautiful things that we effectively could not have with just B&W.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 12:29:48 GMT

While some just would not have the same impact and range in color

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

SignifDigits — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 12:56:15 GMT

But everything, or nearly everything anyways, that I prefer in B&W my wife prefers in color, so "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

March411 — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:08:32 GMT

@SignifDigits wrote:

But everything, or nearly everything anyways, that I prefer in B&W my wife prefers in color, so "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

And with the advancement/improvement of both equipment and software you can obtain both interpretations by capturing a single digital frame.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

johnrmoyer — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 13:37:50 GMT

I spent years writing code to capture data from various sensors and writing code to present an interpretation of that data to users. I think that both the data captured and the presentation are important. The presentation is more useful if one can learn how it was derived from the data.

A strength of modern cameras is that both the data and a variety of interpretations are available from one shutter click if a raw file is saved. A weakness of modern cameras is that the algorithms used to create the presentation are usually unnamed and are sometimes trade secrets.

With Rawtherapee or Darktable, all of the algorithms are available, but may not work as well as software from the camera manufacturer that makes use of the trade secrets.

Re: 1932 - Purists/Realists Vs. Pictorialists - Ansel Adams

Ramsden — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 09:25:12 GMT

Good morning from (dare I say) a grey overcast North of England

Really enjoying this discussion. I'm about a third of the way through Ansel's autobiography, so still a musician. Interesting early years!

Not wishing to stir the pot too much, but as some of you may recall in the last 48 hrs, I sought help to do stacking on my ipad. So I've got the apps, but yet to stack.

Just a couple of questions: where does stacking sit in SOOC, and this debate?

I lean towards SOOC but quite pragmatic about most things. But as I see it, stacking SOOC, is not really changing the original photos.

Ironically, I watched a Utube last night to see how to do it, and this guy spent 15mins changing the first photo to 'improve' it, before stacking.

Moving on.

So what's the position on stacking?

I've got Ansel Adams books on The Camera and Negative open on my work top as a permanent reference at the moment. His diagrams and techniques are excellent to my inexperienced eyes. Such a great resource.

But also in my pile of books I have a well worn ex library book by W Eugene Smith- just called 55. Another B&W masterpiece. So where does he stand in the photography world as he hasn't been mentioned in the debate so far.

The photography/compositions in this book are excellent.

On with the stacking...

Oh and close ups with my new tool.

Ramsden