ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

Ansel was considered a straight photographer, not a pictorialist yet, as he compared photography to music and said his negative was the score and his print, after post processing, was the performance.

lschiz Loc: Elgin, IL

It’s apears to me to be obvious that your are upset and do care.
It’s posts like this that I just move on to the next.
Good day!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The pixel levels of a Bayer sensor is 50% green, 25% red, and 25% blue. This has nothing to do with RAW. Is the world we see 50% green, 25% red, and 25% blue? No. Therefore there are algorithms to balance out the colors. Just how good was that algorithm? And then there are the actual colors of those green, red, and blue filters on those pixels. Those affect the wave lengths that are seen by the pixels. They cannot perfectly match the green, red, and blue that the eye sees.

I am not saying that the rendered colors are not as acturate as they could be. I am saying that they are as acturate as possible, such that our eyes will not detect the difference, but never perfect. Otherwise there would be no need for the chromatic color charts that labs and manufactures put out for the sensors to compare sensors to one another. Those charts show how good, or poor, a sensor is at capturing a color or hue. Compared to the film days, color accuracy has never been better and will only get better - but it will never be perfect.

So for any SOOC shot, it will always be ever so slightly altered from what was actually there from a color point. Then there are all the other various steps that can, and others that will, affect even that SOOC image. That is why, for me, it is more important to worry about the subject and composition, and the story it conveys, than it is to worry about SOOC and PP. Yes, it becomes much easier to have the subject, composition, and the story it conveys, SOOC (or close). But most of the time, "reality" will need at least a little touching up.

papaluv4gd Loc: durham,ct

I am not going to read all 8+ pages of responses to my ramblings. What I will say, and let me make this perfectly clear, I did not say I was opposed to any and all PP. At the moment, I don't have any PP software.
I have a chromebook, and there is precious few real good PP programs for it. Unless I'm missing something. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with anyone doing it. I will probably get into it at some point in the not too distant future.

The point of my posting was NOT to start others ranting at me for supposedly putting others photographers down because they choose to enhance thei work. I saw the sample shots that Burke posted as an example of light handed proccessing. I will be the first to admit that the second shot WAS a bit more appealing. however, if he had not offered up the second image,I would have enjoyed the original.
I have seen some scenic shots posted here and thought, damn, if I'd had the opportunity to be in the same place, would I be capable of producing an equally stunning photo?
Then I think, did that scene actually look that stunning? or was there some editing of it to give it a broader appeal? Either way,I still enjoyed what I was looking at.

There is nothing wrong with editing photos. I don't care if someone wants to make their work look like a cartoon. All fine and well. Some folks would look at picaso and see a visionary. Others would see a mad man. I would fall under the later. All that being said, Stop reading this blather ,pick up your camera and go make some art. It's all good.

papaluv4gd Loc: durham,ct

mmc, by all means please do. might be an eye opener for me. thank you.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

A most sensible and objectively true look at the situation.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I just reread you original post very carefully. I understand what you are saying now, but your original post was clearly anti post-processing. There were no ambiguities in it. Your lack of appreciation of art seems similarly rigid to me. If you aren't interested in post processing and don't appreciate cubism so be it. Each to their own. It's not everybody's cup of tea.

A lot of people don't want the expense, or aren't willing to devote the significant time necessary to master post processing software in order to get the best from their images. If you are happy with your SOOC shots, who I am to argue with you. However, some of us aren't so easily satisfied.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thank you for your permission. The 1-st one before PP and the 2-nd one after. I am sorry if you do not like my rendition.

(Download)


(Download)

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I like it. Nice.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

In the topic where this was posted, the OP said, "I'm a sucker for dead trees and foggy mornings." You removed the fog

That doesn't mean he won't like it; but my point is that there are a few things to consider about "show me what you mean."

One is the person editing attempts to retain the intent of the original.

Or, the photographer explains their problem and asks how to fix it.

Or, the photographer says, I'm looking for any and all ideas; show me yours.

The third is what "My Image/Your View" is based on, a weekly editing challenging in For Your Consideration section. It's great fun, both as host and participant, to see all the interpretations possible from a single photo. This week's is underway. Most weeks you will find everything from minimal edits to fanciful (composites, paintings, sketches and more).
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-622625-1.html

.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

"Heated and hollow" - has a nice alliteration going, while being very easy to understand (and true)!

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

And why does it even bother you? What is right to you is not to others. SOOC does not exist. Many of us shoot RAW and raw images are flat needing processing. SOOC means jpeg quality processed by the camera and a total lack of control on your images.

And my message to the critical people who want rules imposed on all, be a little more tolerant of opposing views and less critical of their work. This will have a lasting impression. It may not be how you would have took it or processed it and that is fine because it is an art, stop trying to clone others into yourself.

This is what I have found to be fulfilling for me and what I enjoy presenting to others. It is my view of the landscapes I have visited. Who is to say what is right or wrong. Many past artists, photographers included, pushed the acceptable limits of their time. They pressed on no matter the voices telling them they were wrong. The definition of limit is "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass." Limits choke and restrain creativity and with them all works would be the same. Want to really succeed in photography? Go beyond the acceptable limits and see where it leads.

I see hear and read so many photographers making crap of images they see. I have to wonder about their reasons for doing this and why they just can't accept those images as another persons view of how they see the world. Some of these photographers are trying to sell photo workshops and they sell their style as the preferred way of doing things. They sell these shops to people wanting to shoot like they do and in essence they become a clone of them. They are missing out on their own journey

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thank you for your comments and informing me about "For your consideration". BTW I would not try to change picture in your link because it is almost perfect IMHO. Before posting OP picture with my rendition I asked and receive OP permission.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Yeah, that happens sometimes too