Angmo

Yep. How about all those fake ISO speeds... completely unethical. And aperture to manipulate light?? Dont get me stared...

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

I am with you Linda. Ask anyone who has developed their own photographs, the amount of post production work that took place in the dark room; filters, variable development times, paper media types, etc, etc, just to try to achieve that vision, that art. All the great photographers put in that post time. Hey, thanks for software that gives me the ability to pursue that vision. There is no wrong way, no right way. It all depends what you want to achieve.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If we assume the field of view for the human eye is that of a 50mm lens, all photography from all other lens / focal lengths must also include an indicator of failure to use a normal lens ...

Leitz Loc: Solms

Some of us are too busy with our own pictures to find time to whine about what others are doing with theirs.

Waltm Loc: Fredericksburg, VA

You have just brought back 60 years ago at the local Polish Home on Saturday night.

Thanks for the memory.

TheDman Loc: USA

Absolutely, it is only ethical.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If one photographs a Jackalope, is that realism or fantasy? Or just the beer talking?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7290/27517788341_e22c34cb69_z.jpg

DJ Mills Loc: Idaho

I continue to look at the example of Hollywood. Little of what we see is "real" but we pay a lot of money to be entertained by the artistry of make-believe. People even win Oscars for the best and most believable photographic trickery. My wife hates the trickery of post processing, but really likes many of my photographs which do not represent reality in the way she thinks they do. I no longer tell her I "cheated" but just thank her when she pays me a compliment. If it looks good on the wall, and if I like it, that's good enough for me.

canon Lee

Hi Bob... You are correct in that some of the images that are posted are excessively over adjusted... Consider that eveyones monitor is adjusted differently, that said, I feel that the shot should be in the ball park as far as exposure is concerned, then only tweaked when edited.... Some of the postings use HDR, which seems to me to look unreal.. There is a change from a RAW conversion to JPEG. For those that edit to make prints, the color and exposure will always be different... I sell all of my work as prints, so before I out source to a print lab, I always adjust for the print, in that I know that the blacks, due to the paper used, such as glossy, the black will print dark, lacking in detail, so my edits on my monitor in LR compensate for this... What I have found is that the shadow sliders in LR will bring up the mid tones.... My original shot will always be less then total whites on the histogram.. I always tweak the highlights. Understand that Raw is not a picture but data that is use to make a picture.. So the algorithms ( mathematics) are designed from data to jpeg.. LR can manipulate the mathmatics to change color and exposure.... LR starts with a preview jpeg derived from its progams algorithm, allowing you to change color, density of black and whites, sharpness, and a host of other things... If it looks good on your calibrated monitor it then using a jpeg algorithm to create a picture... Printers then have to look at the jpeg pixel and it then converts it to dots. So the answer is not that simple Bob, since what comes out of your camera is converted to a jpeg, then to a print... Some where along the process, what you see is really not what you see.... It is controlled by algorithms... Dital is all about numbers and math to end up as a print... I have simplified the proceedure and I know there are others that can clarify the process better than I.... What we see on the net are low resolution pictures...They will not be as sharp and tend to color shift.... I hope I have not confused a simple question.....

chippy65 Loc: Cambridge

The starting point of this discussion/ controversy was " The excessive use of post processing "

one definition of excessive could be "over -the top "

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

And 11-page discussions such as this thread are evidence of why ...

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

"Over the top" isn't any better a definition than "excessive". You'll never get a consensus among photographers about where that line is. It's a matter of individual taste. Some people like "over the top".

lamontcranston

Beautiful work! I especially like the color rendition of the 1st one. Excellent job on that one and certainly not over-done.

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

If you wish to make a counter argument to my statement I’d be interested in reading it. Your sarcasm about excessive shutter speed doesn’t really lay out what your objection is.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

=============

Image Defence?