OnDSnap Loc: NE New Jersey

Thank God we don't all see alike...

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

I guess a lot comes down to.... has the picture you've taken look like what you actually saw? When you originally saw the scene, something intrigued you about it. Assuming your camera has reasonable reproduction powers, you leave it as is.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Well said!

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Go get'em Linda! I agree 100% with you.

aquadiver Loc: Planet Earth

I am an underwater photographer (not exclusively), and I have often said that almost all u/w photography is a "lie." Why? Because the brilliant colors in photos of corals and sponges and anemones and fish are not what we actually see down there. Water rapidly strips out color as you go deeper, starting at the red end of the spectrum. By the time you get to 60 feet down, everything is a blue-green. That's why even non-photographer divers often carry lights, and it's definitely why photographers always shoot with high-powered strobes. We find the "real colors" by firing strobes, which are only effective within 6-8 feet of the subject. And then we get to Lightroom, punch it up a bit, sharpen it, and most of the time send it to PS, which does a better job of removing backscatter, which is the reflection of the lights off the many tiny particles drifting along in the water column and make it look like a snowstorm. The end result looks nothing like what I saw just before I took the photo, but it is an accurate rendition of what is down there. I make no apologies for it.

For photos out of the water, I tend to prefer a natural look, but I occasionally will shoot something HDR because of the way a scene is naturally lit. My aim is to produce photos that please me and maybe someone else who will buy them. I'm not (any longer) a photojournalist or a police photographer, and I don't think anyone other than those categories should be held to that standard. Besides, through lighting, cropping and many other techniques, even SOOC can be made to "lie."

PAZ Loc: Glen Ridge NJ

As a corporate shooter, I charge for "Post Processing"....to download, edit and convert raw to jpeg for client's use. Retouching is also post processing to "enhance" a portrait. Shooting under mixed lighting WB, dodging burning, etc. helps make your work pop and crushes anyone trying to do the same with a smart phone. Very seldom do I give a client something right out of the camera, only when under a tight deadline for a blog or Twitter feed in real time.
X-rays prove that even the greatest artists worked their canvasses to the Nth degree to finesse the final painting.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

They certainly can do "...whatever way they choose.". But, I agree with Bob - to an extent and that is when I first glimpse and see what I consider to be overly processed image I go back to the main body of the forum and look for the next topic of seeming interest. Personally, I'm interested in photographic images; that said it might be considered to have a topic titled "Artistic Renditions".

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

You are absolutely WRONG!! The Photography hobby includes preparing for the shoot, proper camera operation AND processing (which in the old days would be developing, enlarging and print drying and mounting). Processing is now the development (IN COMPUTER) of your DIGITAL images. If you don't agree, then fine.. but don't try to place your misinterpreted thinking on others. I've been shooting since 1957 (First film using a Kodak 35 and then Rolei then graduated to Hasselblad, Miranda and Nikon. I got a couple of point and shoot digitals and then a Nikon D70s. When you shoot digital, you have the advantage of looking at the shot immediately after you take it, you can set your camera to do a lot of in-camera processing etc. Or, you can (as I do) get the basic shot and then PROCESS it ON a COMPUTER to get the shot that I (the PHOTOGRAPHER) wanted. HOWEVER, now in digital, we also have the opportunity to experiment, adjust and many other things that were difficult or impossible with film. Photography is an ART form and in such, no two artists will see or develop in the same way. Just because you CHOOSE to do it one way and someone else is so misguided to do it different from you doesn't make it wrong (in fact, you may be the one that is wrong) so just enjoy the art and let other do as they choose. Personally, I don't care for Salvador Dahli's work but I do appreciate the work that he did and I definitely wouldn't be able to do what he has done.
My point is, just because you shoot one way and some one else chooses to do it differently doesn't make you right or them wrong... just different. And All are worth looking at.

alphonso49uk

If you want to see examples of overcooked images....take a look at Ken Rockwells...and hes a pro!

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I don't usually produce landscapes so I am no expert, but those that I enter in contests and challenges "natural" usually lose out to way overdone "HDR" type entries. I mean, WAY OVERDONE. I have sometimes surrendered to the way overdone crowd and redone my natural PP to way overdone, even way, way overdone and reentered in followup challenges, and have usually done much better. I now sometimes have two versions, "natural" for myself and "way overdone" for online. I can offer a possible explanation for the trend. Many contest and challenge entries are posted online in very small sizes, perhaps 2"x 3" on the PC screen or even thumbnails, and it takes a lot of "bling" to make landscape photos standout at this size. A casual viewer may not even notice the over processing at that size, and does not bother to review the photo at full size where the over processing would be more obvious.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm in your corner, Bob. I tend to limit my processing to what I could, and still do, in the darkroom. That's burning, dodging, contrast control, etc. I'm not into a lot of the garish appearance of a lot of photographs.
--Bob

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I was asked to take 'Evidence Photographs' , during my days as a Pro' Photographer. For a few years after Digital cameras had emerged, The main rule, was, "Film cameras only"
Of course, signing on the back of prints, declaring ..."No exaggeration had been carried out" was obligatory. Took a few years for digital images to be accepted. But I never did any Evidence/Legal photographs,with digital cameras. Retirement came along.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

There are apples and oranges. There are pictures and there is art.

leinbas Loc: Greenwood,SC

I agree with both Bob and Linda. Like Bob, I find many of the images on the web to be over processed, but that is largely a matter of personal taste. To each his/her own.

Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom