minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I agree with your definitions too (that's really what I meant by saying there were overlaps and intersects, I probably just didn't say it well enough). Along any continuums are degrees - some photographers seem to enjoy their cameras more than making photos and some "artistic" types seem to enjoy making images no one has a clue how to respond to) - but all of us, in one way or another, one degree or another, stamp our vision onto our products, even if we don't mean to. Still, there are absolutists in every camp. I usually find myself wandering around in the neutral ground in between - sometimes I do want a heavy dose of reality and sometimes I want to dream up something that represents more how I felt about the scene.

Nightski

The former is me and the latter is me ... I love using my camera. I have hundreds .. maybe thousands of images that need my attention. I have tutorials galore. I never seem to find time to get to them because I'm always out shooting. And when someone posts something like you have posted here, even if I just love it, I don't quite know how to respond to it.

But, I am not an absolutist. I love all images that are well done from SOOC to almost purely created in Photoshop from a photo. If it's well done, and it has an impact for me, I love it. That is because I love photography that is art. I think any photography that is not purely documentary is art and even sometimes that is art. Let's face it .. even the SOOC purists make choices with their cameras that make their images different than anyone else's images. That is creative .. that is art. It may not be very good art, but it's art.

I am thinking that as soon as Autumn passes, I will find more time to learn photoshop .. :-D I should really spend more time rummaging through the Post Processing Section.

jgordon Loc: Boulder CO

So SOOC means straight out of the camera? Is it absolutely required that we use acronyms? Isn't photography is hard enough to understand without us making up our own private language?

That all said, I agree with Nightski: When we are in the world of art, if the final image works emotionally it is good with me. I don't care whether or not the technology of the camera's computer is augmented by the technology of a free standing computer.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I do think it behooves us to periodically consider where we stand on the continuum. There are photographers who strongly believe one or the other route is the best (pure realism vs artistic license). There are those of us who waffle as we figure ourselves out. Early in my own photography I was much more obsessed about sticking to the actual appearance of the scene/object when I shot it, feeling that I'd somehow "cheated" if I cloned out distractions or changed white balance to get an appearance that i liked better but wasn't really what I saw. I'm way past that now, thinking about post processing before I take a photo. But I still feel a little guilty about changing out skies....

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I wouldn't worry too much about trying, or feeling guilty about not trying to capture the actual appearance of a given scene. For starters, there would be no black and white images.
JackM

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Indeed!

And I have spent some time this afternoon working up a black and white portrait of my grandson using the Orton approach. It has been interesting..

nanaval Loc: Cornwall

I really like what you have done to this picture, the tyre in the tree says there are children here and you can imagine them having a good time. The house blends in well being the colour it is and all in all looks like a place you would want to live...

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Thank you for these very kind comments! (it isn't to everyone's taste). It seemed an idyllic scene to me - I'm old enough to remember when many American families had little houses like this, often with tire swings!