Posted by Darren White on September 3, 2009 at 8:38 PM
I was having a conversation with someone the other night and we were discussing my use of a moon in some of my shots......
and I asked him....well what is the difference between me adding a moon and someone cloning out twigs in a creek to clean it up and make it look better to the viewer...
I would love to hear your response on this....and know that it is just how you feel, there is no right or wrong answer and no toes will get stepped on....
thanks!!!
Posted by Mark Windom on September 3, 2009 at 10:36 PM
As long as the moon was supposed to be at that location in the sky, in that phase, and at that time of year I have no problem with it....which is fairly restrictive and I'm sure I'll get some criticism for my opinion....
Posted by Bryan Swan on September 4, 2009 at 2:37 AM
This is sort of why I hesitate in removing small fairly unobtrusive twigs from some of my shots. I'm not a fan of adding something that wasn't there or removing something that could be removed by hand before taking the picture, but I'm fairly indifferent to portraying a scene as the human eye sees it, considering the lens usually distorts it to proportions outside the biologic scope of reference.
Posted by Sean Watson on September 4, 2009 at 6:16 AM
What's your aim with photography. There's a spectrum and there are lots of valid spots to stand in it. If it's to record what's captured by your sensor (as faithfully as possible), clearly, Photoshop is anathima. On the other hand, if your aim is to collect source material to fool around with in Photoshop, the Photoshop is essential. If it's to depict the scene you saw, as faithfuly as possible, you'll want to restrict yourself to things like cropping, straightening, cloning out dust, color correction, perhaps sharpening, etc. You may be compensating for limitations in your skill, equipment, or medium. If your aim is to inform, maybe it's OK to emphasize facts, doge, burn, remove extraneous details (branches, etc). If you're trying to inspire, go ahead and add a moon (even someplace it can't be); take all the license you want.
It's your art. It's your message. Play by the rules you set. (Just don't misrepresent anything.)
A warning though... As you alter your image, you remove credibility. Especially with nature photography, much of the expressive power seems to come from the fact that the image actually happened. If your viewer disbelieves you (either because it seems impossible or because they're used to seeing "fake" images from you), you've erroded a lot.
I find that many of my better images are more powerful in their most "raw" form. The subject speaks for itself and any flaws actually work in favor of the image to validate that it's a "real" photograph.
There are folks out there (perhaps you're one of them) who get a lot of satisfaction from "working" an image. I get the feeling that the post-processing is nearly as rewarding as the capture. If that's your cup of tea, go for it.
Obviously, this is mostly from the producer's point of view. The consumer may have his or her own expectations. If you're shooting to share (or to sell), you'll want to have a understanding of those expectations.
Anyway that's my philosophy. (And it's certainly evolved over time; and will continue to evolve.)
Sean
Posted by Darren White on September 4, 2009 at 7:29 AM
I agree with you Sean, some of my biggest sellers are images that are in there most raw form, like a waterfall without the motion of the water.
thanks for the feedback I was just kind of curious as to where people stood.......
Posted by Kevin Pieper on September 4, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I think it's really important, mostly to other photographers reviewing your image, to be honest about whether you added, or enlarged a moon (or adding/subtracting anything from an image). They are the ones who are going to be most critical of that edit. It's easy to put a little disclaimer in your description when posting on a photography site or flickr so people know what you did. Then it's not an issue of integrity or honesty, just an issue of how well the image works.
Posted by Craig Sullivan on September 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Even the pros do it and don't tell you. Check Art Wolfe's cover shot of Delicate Arch on July 2009 OP and Meunch's similar shot years ago on the cover of his book UTAH. I think this was gross deception because neither admitted the photoshop composition. I don't have a problem with doing it for your own satisfaction or labeling it as a composite if you sell or publish it.
Posted by Mark Hudon on September 4, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I'd like to hear it presented as manipulated. I'd really hate to hear the Adams cloned in the moon in his famous photo "Moonrise over Hernandez".
Posted by Rick Lundh on September 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
When I was learning photoshop, I used to enjoy the clone tool a lot. I added skies and moons and didnt think twice about it as well. I was in a hurry to gather a lot of cool photos for my portfolio because most of my images sucked. Over the last 5 years, I've gotten out quite a bit and have captured some interesting and hopefully pleasing moments in time. I've deleted a lot of the old manipulations because I didnt get as much satisfaction out of them as I do capturing it first hand. I do still have some of my favs in my portfolio that were popular though.
I think that most photography is art, so its open to your descretion, just be honest about it. If you post an image online to other photographers, it is mandatory to state what you did to it. If it is hanging in an art gallery, you dont have to print a disclaimer on the back...but if a person asks you point blank, then you must tell them exactly what you did. I've lost a sale or two because I was honest, but at least I can stare myself in the mirror at the end of the day with a clear conscious.
Its interesting to watch the change in people's acceptance over the last 6 years. It used to be completely taboo to do such a thing. But now, I see a lot of people manipulate photos a lot that used to stand on a high horse before.
I would be interested to hear if Art or David had a conversation with the publishers or editors about needing to disclose the manipulations that were done. I've never seen someone post in a book or on their website that some of the images may be constructed on the computer...and dont expect that to change anytime soon.
This subject is a tricky one. Cloning out a twig isnt bad, but if you clone out a tree and dont disclose it...well, that is bad. But when it comes to colors, its more of a grey area. Was the sky THAT blue, were the clouds THAT red... it's always gonna be a matter of preference on how you are trying to come accross. If you clone in a moon, you need to state it. If you increase the size of a moon, you need to state it when you post for critique.
I'm not a photo journalist, I like to consider myself more of an artist as that is my background. If I were to add a moon, it would be as Mark W mentioned, and about the only thing I have cloned out is sensor dust spots. But I dont have any argument against someone cloning out the odd twig, branch or using any of the other tools available to create your vision... it's your art after all. I do find it odd how other artists such as painters are given far more leeway when it comes to a scene. In some respects, photographers seem to be held to a higher standard, even by those painters.
Posted by Aaron Reed on September 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM
I have always found it interesting that this is such a huge discussion. Now Darren, I have messed around with you for sure but it was all in good fun. I have always felt that photography, as with any art is personal to the person creating it. I agree with the idea that one should be honest with presentation and explanation of how an image was captured if asked but as far as right or wrong, that seems like a ridiculous argument to me. There are plenty of things that can be done in the darkroom to "change" "enhance" or "manipulate" a photo. I know for a fact that film photographers in times past have done things like shoot an entire roll of film of nothing but moons at 300mm, in separate corners of the frame...then rewound the entire roll and re-shot it, just to get moons in their images. For me, what is important is what the viewer feels when looking at the image, and the enjoyment the photographer had when taking or "creating" it. Nothing else. Why would I care if another photographer doesn't agree with the way I captured or edited a photograph. I can tell you that some of my most heavily edited photographs are some of my biggest sellers. I don't see a problem with removing a twig in PS. What is the difference between that, and moving the twig in the field? You just accomplished the same thing, without causing an impact to what is REALLY important... the nature itself. I have seen image purists with portfolios that I would be ashamed to show people and in the same breath have seen tons of images that were heavily manipulated and Waaaay overdone. Did anyone ever ask a painter if the image they created was based on a real location and then asked...was that deer really there? Don't get me wrong... I do not add any objects in my images. I draw the line in adding objects or replacing skies, partially because my PS skills are not that good. I know many photographers, including local ones on this forum, highly respected by others here, who do. Whether or not they do is their preference and I could honestly care less. This will be my last mention of moons to you Darren.
I'll chime in, allthough my opinion is completely personal and not really based on much customer feedback. I personally try not to overmanipluate pictures, and have tried harder to gain a better RAW file by being at the right place at the right time or using GND's for example. But my purpose is to try to represent a scene as I see it, which your camera definitely DOESN'T. I have, for example, replaced a lake reflection with its mirror image so it looks like it did to me in real life. I will clone out minor things that detract from an image. I also will tweak colors and the like until it looks pleasing to my eye. All of the photoshop things I do to the image is basically electronic versions of what photographers would do in the field or the darkroom.
Just look at what Ansel Adams did - he was questioned by some because of his dodging and burning in the darkroom. But his images struck a chord with many. And I'm sure his images didn't start out that way on his glass plates.
Ultimately, photography is another medium with which we all create. I'll admit, it is very difficult to produce an award winning image just by printing the file (question for all Canon owners, have you EVER used the direct print button on your camera?), so some editing is needed. But everyone has their line, and mine is as long as it looks believable. I haven't put in moons and things like that, though.
But like I said in the beginning, I only know my personal opinion, but commercially I haven't had many bites. So maybe I don't have images that stand out enough? Or maybe I need to market myself better. In any case, the customer only knows what they like by what they see. And they usually go for the dramatic. So it makes sense that they would be drawn to that great sky with that big, fat moon in it. So we each need to decide what is more important to ourselves, to follow your ideals and not deviate from them or to make images that highly sellable. In terms of Art Wolfe, I'm actually surprised that he placed a moon in that cover shot. He's much more capable than that. But it sells better that way.
Let the debate continue.
Kevin
Posted by Darren White on September 5, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Aaron Please take note that this topic was not even closely aimed at you.....
it was a conversation a friend and i were having the other night so I thought I would bring it up here....
I was basically just curious to get others feelings on it.....
Posted by Adrian Klein on September 5, 2009 at 10:11 AM
These conversations fascinate me that some people get so worked up about what did this photographer do or not do on xyz image. It’s good for understanding what we can do but not get down on a photographer because they simply are using the tools at their disposal as they see fit. I could debate this forever with someone but I will try to keep my response short just for lack of time on my end. I really fall more into the realm of what Aaron mentions. The entire photography process has always been open to manipulation. It’s just different now in digital. Well put by Mark, Ansel probably did not “clone” in a moon. He was a pro at the darkroom as Kevin mentions though, just as someone would be a pro at working Photoshop today. And wow, how many of us don’t like Ansel’s work. Not many. Ok, yes he was probably not cloning in trees for other images or what have you. But who really cares, its art and we are all entitled to do what we please when it comes to it. Would you want to be told what you could or could not do for your art work? I know I would not want that. In workshops I try to get all options across to people and then let them decide what they want do. I respect all types of photography, there is no right or wrong answer yet I feel some photographers think there are because it may not fit in line with they way they do and or their personal beliefs in how it should be done.
I agree that people should not out right lie when confronted especially for something important like publications as that is just like being dishonest about anything else, yet we know there are photographers that do it anyway and to be honest that is their deal and I don’t loose sleep over it. And if you believe all photographers will start being honest in this area I would say you need to wake up as that won't likely happen. I got an email this week that speaks to this very topic. An image of mine is getting published in Professional Photographer. One of the questions they asked is was there any special processes I used to create this image. I was asked and I was open, which I in turn noted my manual blending in Photoshop of multiple exposures to achieve the final image. But I don’t believe you need to disclose all detailed info for a project, art show, posting online, etc basically all the things you did to that image, if you don’t want to. If the image looks great to the creator and works for the creator then that is where we should let it go. It’s art and the photographer’s digital negative is like a blank canvas for a painter, or solid piece of wood to carve for a sculptor and so on.
Darren, I have to say it was interesting to see that whole thing transpire with your moon fireworks shot where you cloned that larger moon in that wide angle image because you sometimes give other photographers a hard time about not looking completely real and then plainly did it without mentioning it. You expected everyone to notice it but not everyone does because they are looking at it at from a different point of view, the enjoying art view that is and not the technical can that really be point of view.
My bottom line is does an image appeal to me, speak to me, move me, make me want to be there, give me new appreciation for the place or just a great looking image that could have really happened. Whether the image is 100% as shot or heavily manipulated in processing is not usually a piece of criteria used in my final decision if I like an image or not. It's interesting to know that kind of info but does not distingush good from great work.
Ok, I need to stop now. Just my three cents…and I guess longer than I expected!
Posted by Darren White on September 5, 2009 at 1:58 PM
you are correct adrian, and I did own up to it......thanks for all the feedback everyone...hope you are all having a wonderful labor day weekend.....there was a killer rainbow here in the NW the past 2 days...I missed the one yesterday but got the one today!!!!
Cheers!!!
Posted by Ian Cox-Leigh on September 6, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Just for the record, Art is quite clear that the moon in his delicate arch shot is not a digital composite, but rather a double exposure with a change in focal length.
He also says that that piece of information was made clear to Outdoor Photographer and they simply chose to omit it from the photo caption and information.
Other than that, I think Adrian just about expresses my own view closely enough that I'll save myself the typing and say I agree with him.
Posted by Erik Lundh on September 6, 2009 at 2:31 AM
One of the first photography books I read had a chapter in it called "Moons in th refrigator". Of course it was during the film days. The author would shoot nothing but moons on rolls of film. Full, half, bright ect. Then rewind his camera to certain spot and take the film out of his camera and store it in his fridge. When it came time to use the film with "moons", he would load the film back in his camera. Then shoot landscape or whatever with a moon exposed on the film to make a double exposure. He spoke of this as being common practice and alot of pro photographers do this all the time with double exposures. I'm not giving my opinion, just a different perspective.
Posted by Ned Fenimore on September 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM
If you took and own the file - who cares what you do? have fun with it.. it's yours..
Posted by Philip Kuglin on September 6, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I would read Ansel's book "The Print" - it would shed some night on this topic...
I think it is a digital thing now because in the analog days people didn't discuss this much. I shoot mostly B&W film now and work mostly in the darkroom so this isn't an issue anymore. I guess I am going backwards in technical things, but watching that image appear in the developer is the meaning of photography now. I stiull think you can do what ever you want. Just be true to yourself.
Finally, I am with Mark here. I would hate to think Ansel added that moon in the "Moonrise over Hernandez". It would wreck it for me. I just returned from SF and went through the Museum of Modern Art there. They have a special showing of Ansel with that print boldly displayed along with about 100 others. Took us two days to soak it in. There is also Robert Frank and Richard Avedon. About 400 prints to view even with Robert Franks original work prints and contacts. Simply heaven for a photographer since the three main venues were shown: landscape, portrait and street-human interaction. There website is http://www.sfmoma.org
Enjoy
Posted by John Williams on September 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM
My opinion is that you can manipulate anything you want, just disclose it. The problem as I see it is that if you add a moon, etc., and don't disclose it, others may distrust the rest of what you do, manipulation or not.
Posted by Roman Johnston on September 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I have zero problems editing files to enhance them. My personal rule of thumb usually runs alongside most landscape photographers bring I dont add elements or photoshop out elements that were or were not there.
Like others have said...I also have no problem resizing the moon to what they eye saw if I recorded the moon in the origonal shot...just put a longer lens on, and then downsize over the small moon in the wide angel shot...things like that work ok...but I usually disclose that as well.
I respect other artist/photographers (another argument that is always hot....art or photography...I say both) but I respect when others disclose editing, and like removal of items, or like shooting wildlife in controlled areas etc...its just good to stay honest in such things.
It is your creation....make your own rules....disclose or at least be open and honest if you do make such changes...and enjoy your craft.
I do not disclose a few twigs being removed and do not consider this at all to be "Photoshopped" or "Manipulated."
Once in a while I will double expose a moon in by composite (usually when the moon was there but slightly out of the frame). I DO consider this "Photoshopped" and "Manipulated." I always disclose this information on my website below the image and when asked I will tell people the truth on the issue. Almost all of my moons in my library are real, but a few are an artistic intrepetation put in.
Who cares if someone puts a moon into their scene? What matters is their ethics and if they are honest about it. This is an art form. Some may choose to punt on the issue and just say nothing. I think that is ok. But when asked at an art show or gallery... then the issue becomes more important. Will they lie ar be honest?
Previous comment: "I personally don't like editing. IMHO, anybody can photochop anything. It takes skill and being in the right place at the right time, and (for me) trial and error.
I have never used any kind of photo editing software. Granted, I'm a relative noob to this, but have been shooting Digital SLR's for almost 6 years and film before that.
Maybe that's why I don't have many amazing shots, but I like the feeling that when I do get a good shot, that it is my work, something I saw and shot, not something I compiled on the computer. Just my opinion, and I know most guys do use photo software. "
Response to the above comment:
Every serious photographer is using photo editing software, it IS the DARKROOM today (mainly the raw converter). It is the best way to get color corrected, excellent authentic images. It is the abuse of the software (or amateur use) that is sometimes an issue. All serious photography is DEVELOPED digitally today. To let your camera's on board photo editing software guess at (and not get right) the interpretation is a dis service to the moment.
Also, anyone can NOT photoshop anything!
This is a major misconception. They might try but it won't look right. Great photos always start at capture and can not be created. Look at the nuts (on that stupid website) bashing Marc's work. They generally say his work is digitally created and that without PS his work is mediocre at best. But try to create a piece of work like his! You simply can't. You have to have an awesome moment to begin with period! This is a public and amateur misunderstanding.
Discussion
22 repliesand I asked him....well what is the difference between me adding a moon and someone cloning out twigs in a creek to clean it up and make it look better to the viewer...
I would love to hear your response on this....and know that it is just how you feel, there is no right or wrong answer and no toes will get stepped on....
thanks!!!
It's your art. It's your message. Play by the rules you set. (Just don't misrepresent anything.)
A warning though... As you alter your image, you remove credibility. Especially with nature photography, much of the expressive power seems to come from the fact that the image actually happened. If your viewer disbelieves you (either because it seems impossible or because they're used to seeing "fake" images from you), you've erroded a lot.
I find that many of my better images are more powerful in their most "raw" form. The subject speaks for itself and any flaws actually work in favor of the image to validate that it's a "real" photograph.
There are folks out there (perhaps you're one of them) who get a lot of satisfaction from "working" an image. I get the feeling that the post-processing is nearly as rewarding as the capture. If that's your cup of tea, go for it.
Obviously, this is mostly from the producer's point of view. The consumer may have his or her own expectations. If you're shooting to share (or to sell), you'll want to have a understanding of those expectations.
Anyway that's my philosophy. (And it's certainly evolved over time; and will continue to evolve.)
Sean
thanks for the feedback I was just kind of curious as to where people stood.......
I think that most photography is art, so its open to your descretion, just be honest about it. If you post an image online to other photographers, it is mandatory to state what you did to it. If it is hanging in an art gallery, you dont have to print a disclaimer on the back...but if a person asks you point blank, then you must tell them exactly what you did. I've lost a sale or two because I was honest, but at least I can stare myself in the mirror at the end of the day with a clear conscious.
Its interesting to watch the change in people's acceptance over the last 6 years. It used to be completely taboo to do such a thing. But now, I see a lot of people manipulate photos a lot that used to stand on a high horse before.
I would be interested to hear if Art or David had a conversation with the publishers or editors about needing to disclose the manipulations that were done. I've never seen someone post in a book or on their website that some of the images may be constructed on the computer...and dont expect that to change anytime soon.
This subject is a tricky one. Cloning out a twig isnt bad, but if you clone out a tree and dont disclose it...well, that is bad. But when it comes to colors, its more of a grey area. Was the sky THAT blue, were the clouds THAT red... it's always gonna be a matter of preference on how you are trying to come accross. If you clone in a moon, you need to state it. If you increase the size of a moon, you need to state it when you post for critique.
I'll chime in, allthough my opinion is completely personal and not really based on much customer feedback. I personally try not to overmanipluate pictures, and have tried harder to gain a better RAW file by being at the right place at the right time or using GND's for example. But my purpose is to try to represent a scene as I see it, which your camera definitely DOESN'T. I have, for example, replaced a lake reflection with its mirror image so it looks like it did to me in real life. I will clone out minor things that detract from an image. I also will tweak colors and the like until it looks pleasing to my eye. All of the photoshop things I do to the image is basically electronic versions of what photographers would do in the field or the darkroom.
Just look at what Ansel Adams did - he was questioned by some because of his dodging and burning in the darkroom. But his images struck a chord with many. And I'm sure his images didn't start out that way on his glass plates.
Ultimately, photography is another medium with which we all create. I'll admit, it is very difficult to produce an award winning image just by printing the file (question for all Canon owners, have you EVER used the direct print button on your camera?), so some editing is needed. But everyone has their line, and mine is as long as it looks believable. I haven't put in moons and things like that, though.
But like I said in the beginning, I only know my personal opinion, but commercially I haven't had many bites. So maybe I don't have images that stand out enough? Or maybe I need to market myself better. In any case, the customer only knows what they like by what they see. And they usually go for the dramatic. So it makes sense that they would be drawn to that great sky with that big, fat moon in it. So we each need to decide what is more important to ourselves, to follow your ideals and not deviate from them or to make images that highly sellable. In terms of Art Wolfe, I'm actually surprised that he placed a moon in that cover shot. He's much more capable than that. But it sells better that way.
Let the debate continue.
Kevin
it was a conversation a friend and i were having the other night so I thought I would bring it up here....
I was basically just curious to get others feelings on it.....
I agree that people should not out right lie when confronted especially for something important like publications as that is just like being dishonest about anything else, yet we know there are photographers that do it anyway and to be honest that is their deal and I don’t loose sleep over it. And if you believe all photographers will start being honest in this area I would say you need to wake up as that won't likely happen. I got an email this week that speaks to this very topic. An image of mine is getting published in Professional Photographer. One of the questions they asked is was there any special processes I used to create this image. I was asked and I was open, which I in turn noted my manual blending in Photoshop of multiple exposures to achieve the final image. But I don’t believe you need to disclose all detailed info for a project, art show, posting online, etc basically all the things you did to that image, if you don’t want to. If the image looks great to the creator and works for the creator then that is where we should let it go. It’s art and the photographer’s digital negative is like a blank canvas for a painter, or solid piece of wood to carve for a sculptor and so on.
Darren, I have to say it was interesting to see that whole thing transpire with your moon fireworks shot where you cloned that larger moon in that wide angle image because you sometimes give other photographers a hard time about not looking completely real and then plainly did it without mentioning it. You expected everyone to notice it but not everyone does because they are looking at it at from a different point of view, the enjoying art view that is and not the technical can that really be point of view.
My bottom line is does an image appeal to me, speak to me, move me, make me want to be there, give me new appreciation for the place or just a great looking image that could have really happened. Whether the image is 100% as shot or heavily manipulated in processing is not usually a piece of criteria used in my final decision if I like an image or not. It's interesting to know that kind of info but does not distingush good from great work.
Ok, I need to stop now. Just my three cents…and I guess longer than I expected!
Cheers!!!
He also says that that piece of information was made clear to Outdoor Photographer and they simply chose to omit it from the photo caption and information.
See: http://blog.artwolfe.com/2009/07/outdoor-photographer-cover/
***
Other than that, I think Adrian just about expresses my own view closely enough that I'll save myself the typing and say I agree with him.
I think it is a digital thing now because in the analog days people didn't discuss this much. I shoot mostly B&W film now and work mostly in the darkroom so this isn't an issue anymore. I guess I am going backwards in technical things, but watching that image appear in the developer is the meaning of photography now. I stiull think you can do what ever you want. Just be true to yourself.
Finally, I am with Mark here. I would hate to think Ansel added that moon in the "Moonrise over Hernandez". It would wreck it for me. I just returned from SF and went through the Museum of Modern Art there. They have a special showing of Ansel with that print boldly displayed along with about 100 others. Took us two days to soak it in. There is also Robert Frank and Richard Avedon. About 400 prints to view even with Robert Franks original work prints and contacts. Simply heaven for a photographer since the three main venues were shown: landscape, portrait and street-human interaction. There website is http://www.sfmoma.org
Enjoy
Like others have said...I also have no problem resizing the moon to what they eye saw if I recorded the moon in the origonal shot...just put a longer lens on, and then downsize over the small moon in the wide angel shot...things like that work ok...but I usually disclose that as well.
I respect other artist/photographers (another argument that is always hot....art or photography...I say both) but I respect when others disclose editing, and like removal of items, or like shooting wildlife in controlled areas etc...its just good to stay honest in such things.
It is your creation....make your own rules....disclose or at least be open and honest if you do make such changes...and enjoy your craft.
Roman
Once in a while I will double expose a moon in by composite (usually when the moon was there but slightly out of the frame). I DO consider this "Photoshopped" and "Manipulated." I always disclose this information on my website below the image and when asked I will tell people the truth on the issue. Almost all of my moons in my library are real, but a few are an artistic intrepetation put in.
Who cares if someone puts a moon into their scene? What matters is their ethics and if they are honest about it. This is an art form. Some may choose to punt on the issue and just say nothing. I think that is ok. But when asked at an art show or gallery... then the issue becomes more important. Will they lie ar be honest?
I have never used any kind of photo editing software. Granted, I'm a relative noob to this, but have been shooting Digital SLR's for almost 6 years and film before that.
Maybe that's why I don't have many amazing shots, but I like the feeling that when I do get a good shot, that it is my work, something I saw and shot, not something I compiled on the computer. Just my opinion, and I know most guys do use photo software. "
Response to the above comment:
Every serious photographer is using photo editing software, it IS the DARKROOM today (mainly the raw converter). It is the best way to get color corrected, excellent authentic images. It is the abuse of the software (or amateur use) that is sometimes an issue. All serious photography is DEVELOPED digitally today. To let your camera's on board photo editing software guess at (and not get right) the interpretation is a dis service to the moment.
Also, anyone can NOT photoshop anything!
This is a major misconception. They might try but it won't look right. Great photos always start at capture and can not be created. Look at the nuts (on that stupid website) bashing Marc's work. They generally say his work is digitally created and that without PS his work is mediocre at best. But try to create a piece of work like his! You simply can't. You have to have an awesome moment to begin with period! This is a public and amateur misunderstanding.