The Natural Landscape Photo Awards: The Natural Landscape Photo Awards say no to digital manipulation...

mtbear

The Natural Landscape Photo Awards say no to digital manipulation

https://newatlas.com/photography/natural-landscape-photography-awards-2021-winners-gallery/?

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Seems like "no" has a new meaning these days. When I was a kid, "no" meant "NO."

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Then they say"...with as little digital manipulation as possible."

I agree, I don't care for excessive either.
But excessive is relative to one's perception.

NickGee Loc: Pacific Northwest

mtbear wrote:

The Natural Landscape Photo Awards say no to digital manipulation

https://newatlas.com/photography/natural-landscape-photography-awards-2021-winners-gallery/?

I applaud the effort. There are few things more grotesque (in my admittedly subjective view) than overly processed, garish representations of natural scenes with colorations that are conspicuously fake. And while drawing the line between "processed" and "overprocessed" is somewhat subjective, I don't think the distinction is that difficult to make. Most of us can pretty easily pick out those oversaturated, unrealistic, hyper-dramatic images, don't you think?

Iron Sight Loc: Utah

Thanks

Properframe Loc: US Virginia

But if you don't bury the saturation slider to the right no one will "like" it on Facebook. And don't forget to swap out the sky too !!

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I am not against PP, but so many people take it to the extremes. They click on saturation until orange trees look red and the sky looks deep royal blue. That's way too much for me. When it reaches the point to where you know NOTHING you've ever seen looks that rich, you know you've gone too far.

contax84

NickGee wrote:

I applaud the effort. There are few things more grotesque (in my admittedly subjective view) than overly processed, garish representations of natural scenes with colorations that are conspicuously fake. And while drawing the line between "processed" and "overprocessed" is somewhat subjective, I don't think the distinction is that difficult to make. Most of us can pretty easily pick out those oversaturated, unrealistic, hyper-dramatic images, don't you think?

You are right on target. Enough with all this digital manipulation!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

NickGee wrote:

I applaud the effort. There are few things more grotesque (in my admittedly subjective view) than overly processed, garish representations of natural scenes with colorations that are conspicuously fake. And while drawing the line between "processed" and "overprocessed" is somewhat subjective, I don't think the distinction is that difficult to make. Most of us can pretty easily pick out those oversaturated, unrealistic, hyper-dramatic images, don't you think?

Hear hear!!

I am so tired of the hideous over-processed over-saturated style seen so often in modern photography. Yes this is my opinion because it is a style choice. However, it's like wine, a little is good, but a lot is not necessarily better. I feel like that style will look very dated in the future. Anyone remember the soft focus look that was so popular in the 70's?