Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Of course - no room for creativity, just document as faithfully as possible.

srt101fan

It's not post-processing per se that most SOOCers object to. It's the excessive use thereof and the garish images it often produces.

Why is it so hard for some to accept that not everyone needs a deep blue or purple sky in every landscape? Or a gazillion shades of orange in a sunset? Or greens the likes of which are the figment of a computer's imagination?

Yes, ALL images are the result of manipulative processes. But for some, less is considered better. Is that so bad?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm not an SOOC advocate, but I dislike "over-done" processing, unless the goal is a <tastefully done> surrealistic look.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The topic was obviously not intended to be a gateway for thoughtful conversation. And what can you say about the subject anyway? Photography, whether you consider it art or not, is personal to the one holding the camera and personal to the one viewing the result.

These types of threads are a way for people to gather 'round the woodstove down at the mercantile, smoke their pipes, and solve the world's problems, without leaving the comfort of their recliners (which is where I am as I type this, though without the tobacco or a clue as to how to solve anything).

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I wonder how those film pics would’ve turned out if you didn’t process them. 😜

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Should it really matter what other people are doing to their images? The way I see it, if other photographers suddenly wish to spray sparkly glitter all over their prints, then so be it. Why should it make me feel sad? For my own work, I am not forced to adopt any styles I dislike. Nor do I have to purchase prints I dislike.

As long as you follow your own idea of aesthetics, stay true to your own artistic vision, then I think it is inconsequential what other photographers choose to do.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I accept that, as with most genres of art, different photographers have different preferences in style and vision; some prefer minimal processing, while others prefer extensive manipulation of the captured image. What perplexes me is the strong tendency by those who don't care for large amounts of processing, to label such efforts as being "fake", "deceptions", "not real photography", or (as one fellow told me while looking at my images at an art festival) "lies"! The use of these judgemental labels goes beyond simply expressing one's own preferences. Such labels strongly imply that the image's creator is engaged in some nefarious attempt to "put one over" on the viewers. Such an implication is, in my opinion, nothing short of an insult to all photographers whose creative approach includes high levels of processing in their attempt to create an image that reflects their personal aesthetic vision.

Personal preferences are just that; personal. We're all free to like what we like and to dislike what we dislike. However, if when expressing personal preferences one insists on using negative, judgemental labels to describe one's non-preferences, it might be wise to examine one's understanding of what it means to be engaged in the creative and expressive activity of photography.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

1 Nature needs finding.
2 The best light is not during lunch break.
3 Too often we see 'the ordinary' and feel it needs 'jazzing up'.
4 The local Government ALWAYS puts a sign, light or litter bin in the best composition.
5 Birds are all camera shy....so I need to zoom in by 200% cause I haven't got a long lens.
6 WALK??? Hell No...I can see it from here....I must need a better camera.
7 I must use Topaz Effects, 'cause most people in my camera club rave about it.
8 Everyone uses Photoshop so I don't want to miss out.
9 My camera doesn't take photo's like I see on the 'net.
10 First there was Chemicals and no-one cared about Health and Safety....Now its safe cause its digital.

Have fun

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Ain't it the truth!

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I've engaged in such conversations numerous times, and can attest to the fact that I have solved ALL of the world's problems countless times over. The problem is, nobody listens to me!

srt101fan

Linda, if you had been sitting in your recliner, having solved all the world's problems, and smoking a pipe, I would really start worrying about you! 😊

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

No worries. The fake world is much more fun 😇

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Rather than "fake photos", I'd prefer to call them "images".
That covers a wide range of things, from photographs to paintings maybe even graphics.

And the word "fake" has a pejorative implication that I don't believe is always appropriate in the case of edited photos.

srt101fan

I hear you and I agree that photographers should follow their vision.

I was lamenting what I see as a larger cultural shift in public likes. These days images have to be visually aggressive and bold, subject/content seems to have taken a back seat, and subtlety seems to be out of favor.

Makes me think of music. I loved the variety of music in the 60's and 70's. Compare that to today's music - where are the folk songs, the instrumentals? So, yes, there is a bit of sadness when you see cultural changes you can't quite hoist aboard.....

But there is hope! 😊 Llnda from Maine has posted a great photo on her UHH Post-processing section. It shows light streaming through a curtained window unto a bed. Many have responded with their own processed version and all are great! Y'all ought to check it out...

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA