Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Most of my shots could not be posted without manipulation of some kind .. I like what you have done ...and I agree with Your philosophy.. I never agreed with SOOC ..

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Explain you self old chap.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

The ONLY one, who needs to explain himself, here, Richard - is YOU - making such a global and asinine comment …

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I am disappointed, again, that yet another thread is ending on a sour note.

I don't even know why there is this continual argument about SOOTC and post-processed images. Both methodologies are perfectly legitimate and when images are well crafted, the method should not call attention to itself.

I am steeped in STOOTC simply because as a commercial photographer, who spent many decades in large format transparency work, there were no post processing remedial actions so whatever was not on the film was lost. I also do a good deal of wedding and portrait photography where production would have seriously slowed down production if every image required major correction so I carried my rather careful shooting methods into digital photography.

On the other side of the coin, I am an experienced custom printer from the analog darkroom and again, I transition my methods into post-processing. So...I try to create good clean files and like to tweak them in PP.

Frankly, I am not into extreme manipulations such as multiple image merging and stitching and frankly, I don't have the time or patience for those processes, HOWEVER, I do have respect and have regard for folks who do those things. As a business operator, I can not do everything myself anyway, that would be bad management. I employ a full-time retoucher and an IT and computer guy is in 3 times a week and takes care of all very specialized work that requires what I can't or won't do. I delegate certain tasks, we work as a team and make sure the clients get what they require on time.

I am an old guy and I love to reminisce about Alsil Adams, William Mortensen, all the great photojournalists, portraitists and iconic shooters of the past. BUT...it is 2019 and I am not any of my old heroes and I find little use or progress in arguing about what all of these old masters did or didn't do. I find the best approach is to learn what we can from history and each other and just apply what we can to our own work and simply discard what he can't or won't t do or use and respect each other's right to their own methods.

All of the unpleasantness is completely unnecessary and counterproductive. UGH!

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Wow such a positive person you are. Hope you don't run a suicide help line anytime soon.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I'm one of those who uses the power of my DSLR (which is powered by a computer more powerful than those from the late '60s that sent man to the moon) and the photo editing software residing on my monster editing computer (my music computer is about half its size). They let me create images that cannot be seen by the human eye, such as the panorama below of downtown San Diego. From the top of the Coronado Bridge (during the Navy's Bay Bridge Walk) I took 38 pictures. At home I stitched them together using the Photomerge function in Photoshop and then "corrected" the distortion at the far left and right. This is one of my most popular non-flower, non-sunset/sunrise sellers, usually purchased by downtown dwellers living in one of the many condo towers visible in the image. So far all buyers have selected either metal prints or canvas, although that might have a lot to do with my marketing of such in earthquake country.

srt101fan

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Fabulous picture, Russel … quite magnificent … so - THAT's what San Diego looks like!!! (always wondered!)

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Comment removed.

GalaxyCat Loc: Boston, MA

Fantastic picture of San Diego. Thanks for sharing.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, isn't it, Cathy?

38 Pictures!!!! … all stitched together, and merged!!!! … What INCREDIBLE patience!!!!!

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Even the simple f-stop adjustment changes how nature displays the image. There is really no such thing as SOOC. We have 2 eyes, generally speaking, the camera has only one. Even between individuals it would not look exactly the same as some of us are color blind. Experience and culture also distorts the reality of what we see.

Cameras are tools that are used depending to the wants or needs of the photographer.

Why ask why?
Why not ask, what else is possible?

Why limit to only record a moment when one can show their own imagination?

gabrielcody

Something is fake only when it is misrepresented.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Documentarians and journalists need to worry about fakery. Artists, portraitists, etc. do not. I've never seen a wedding photograph rejected because the photographer made the bride or groom look too good.

Andy

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Nor is there anything wrong with removing a utility pole in the middle of an otherwise beautiful landscape, or enhancing a stormy sky to look more dramatic, or removing haze and adding contrast to make an image more appealing to the eye... as long as they too are not misrepresented. When I post an image I usually indicate in general terms the post processing software I used and the type of modifications I made. I often have a good idea which images are SOOC because so many of them tend to have washed out colors, poor composition, no cropping and skewed horizons. If the goal of a pleasing picture is achieved, as long as there is no deceit, what difference does it make how it was created? Does the purchaser of a new home ask what hammering technique or nail pattern was used to build the house or is he or she more interested in the end product?