Originally Posted by
Lance B
I agree with Glenda. I don't see a real issue with photo manipulation. There are some spectacular images presented here and elsewhere and I am not all that concerned with how they get to that end, ... If it means that I need to learn how to do these post processing manipulations, then so be it, it will mean that I can present "better" images.
As for Steve's fungi images, his are more of a reportage style and probably need to be accurate for identification purposes. However, that is a different topic. We are not discussing reportage photography, we are discussing what constitutes a pleasing image and one that we would love to have hanging on our wall. If it is obvious photo manipulation people will either like it or not like it at vote accordingly. If it is not obvious then does it really matter? If it looks great then people will vote accordingly. The point is, would you have it hanging on your wall? If so, then vote accordingly. If not, then also vote accordingly. I think there is a little bit of jealousy that some do not have the skills to manipulate a photograph and are thus possibly against photo manipulation....
At the end of the day, we all make our judgements as we are the ones scoring the photo, not faceless judges. If it were supposed to be a perfect representation of what the photographer saw, then that is a different matter, this is reportage photography and most of those I wouldn't have hanging on my wall unless it meant something to me for some reason. However, this may mean it doesn't mean anything to someone else.