Bob Locher wrote:
My major interest in photography is scenics. I love the beauty of the world that is around us. So, I love to look at other people's work as well.
Too many of the pictures I see posted, here and more so on other sites, to my eye have been obviously extensively and excessively worked over in post processing. Colors are too vivid and often unbelievable, edge sharpness is far too exaggerated, contrast has obviously been "adjusted". Often pictures are simply too "cute".
To my eye such pictures are ugly. I guess I'd have to say that if you can tell a picture has been "enhanced" in post-processing then it was probably overdone.
I have nothing against the concept of post-processing and I do it myself, though I am far from a master of it. It can offer wonderful opportunities to improve a photograph, change it to monochrome, remove dust and blemishes, correct color balance, merge photos etc. etc.
But it is and should remain a means to an end, not the end itself.
Is this just me or do others share my view?
My major interest in photography is scenics. I lov... (
show quote)
I understand how you feel about "enhanced" post-processing. I don't necessarily share your opinion. I'm only opposed to "enhanced" post-processing when it is done poorly. But that brings up another issue. How do you feel about replacing skies? Or changing the mood of an image from noon to sunset? All of these could be considered "enhanced" post-processing but can also transform a ho-hum image into one that is spectacular.