Every photographer likes to think that he or she can take great pictures without a bit of help after the shutter is clicked--a process known as post processing or simply post.  Granted, the better the original, the less post processing needed afterwards. Granted too that we should strive to get the shot correct to begin with rather than rely on a bit of manipulation afterwards.  But sometimes, that is just not possible. In the heat of shooting a moving image, such as in sports, wildlife capture or a street scene, it can be very difficult to get the image just right--perfectly exposed, sharply in focus, not too much noise, and with no need to crop.

When I returned to photography several years ago, I knew almost nothing about post processing.  I thought what you saw was what you got because when I began shooting with film more than 40 years ago, that was pretty much the rule unless you did your own developing.  After many so-so shots and a few lessons from Nancy Ori, I entered the world of Photoshop. What an amazing world it is!  Post processing not only allows the photographer to correct little oopses, it also allows the photographer to be more of an artist--to try different effects, a variety of colors and filters, to add or subtract elements from an image and to add color of black and white selectively to an image.  Many of the effects that once required special training or equipment are now possible from your desktop computer--or your pad or phone.  A friend of mine, John Delany, creates amazing digital images based on photographs he takes with his Android phone and the results are stunning!

There are certainly photographers who shun such techniques and argue for pure photography--images that are stunning "right out of the camera." This can be achieved sometimes or it can be a goal, but it may also be a path of frustration and disappointment that few photographers have the ability or patience to follow.  Instead, I believe it is instructive to look at the example set by some of the founders of modern photography, such as Edward Weston or Ansel Adams.  If you study Adams' life you find that he was not shy about admitting to making changes in an original work.  In fact, he was a genius in the darkroom. One has only to look at the difference between two copies of one of his most iconic work "Moon rise, Hernandez, New Mexico." The original is somewhat monochromatic scene of light and shadow.  The familiar one is a startling study of strong blacks and whites, with the moon rising against a jet black sky. (See the picture below.)  The image was achieved primarily through darkroom technique, specifically dodging and burning.  According to Nancy Ori, who was a student of his, Adams was not reluctant to make the changes to a print he deemed necessary to get the image he wanted, saying "sometimes man has to fix nature's little imperfections."  If Ansel Adams was OK with making a few changes to achieve an intended result, who am I to disagree?