quote:Originally posted by skibum101
quote:it's worth mentioning that those photos were not post processed in any way.
ALL images are post processed in some way. If you are shooting Jpeg and using images straight from the camera, and claiming they are not retouched, well you are overlooking the fact that it is being done in camera for you based on your settings. If you are shooting Raw and not retouching them they will not look realistic either as they will be flat and lacking vibrancy comparitively. Some thing alot of "purists" over look is even in the old days film was processed with dodging and burning and other techniques.
quote:ask to put the originals beside the edited ones
What if the person shot Raw? It doesn't prove anything aside from modifications of content.
Photography is as much of an art as anything. The whole mentality that a photo has to look identical to as it was is rediculous. Everyone "sees" differently anyways.
No human sees pic #4 as its posted. I like Karls comment on a different thread awhile ago. He said the pics look like a hybrid of photo and a painting. He nailed it exactly. One of my cameras shoots RAW all the time, and they look pretty close to as shoot and seen, only small correction are needed.
Art? sure, someones expression of a moody scene? yes, photo realistic? no
There is no purist in me, but its clear to most what is doctored beyond natural. Surely all magazine ads etc are done with heavy correcting and HDR, but a good photographer will shoot the best he can and keep corrections to a minimum.
Of course there are artists that want to take a frame and completely change it to an art frame or end up using it only part of the details to create a new scene. But thats not the point here is it?