Originally posted by Focusrite Thanks!
I agree; being able to capture the full rainbow from that vantage point was a real privilege. Until I viewed it in Lightroom, I was sweating about that photo and hoping that it turned out well!
Yes, there has been PP done on that shot; mostly boosting the contrast in the clouds, and bringing the shadows on the shrubbery up, with a few highlights on the bushes dusted with the Adjustment Brush. I also bumped up the temp a notch to get rid of the mild blue in the clouds. Certainly enough to give me pause about misrepresentation ( I do dwell on the ethics of editing, but that's a whole other thread! ), but I'm comfortable that it is faithful rendition of what I remember the scene to be. The colour in the rainbow is 100% legit, though!
I am curious about the perspective of people troubled by the ethics of editing. Are you also troubled by the fact that all photography is editing of reality? Reality is three dimensional and occurs over time. Photography creates a two dimensional representation of a moment of that reality. Nobodies' eyes see reality the way a camera does; when you actually looked at the water - in your time lapse photos - you didn't see a blurred and softened water like is shown in your photos, does that trouble you? Or does the fact that the camera produced that effect on its own somehow absolve you of editing guilt? Is Ansel Adams' extensive post processing of his photography troubling to you? Is a black and white photo of a color scene a "misrepresentation"? Is anything but a clinically accurate color representation acceptable? Lenses filter color, have distortions, flare, reflections, and purple fringing; are these edits of reality troubling or are they somehow OK? Does the fact that cameras, printers, paper, and monitors all have a limited contrast range bother you, or do you just not think about those types of problems while worrying about "misrepresentation"? Does the fact that cameras do
extensive post processing while producing an internal jpeg bother you? Is an absolutely flat Raw photo the only acceptable photo? What about the fact that exposure and color temperature in the raw processor enormously change the way the end photo looks, is that troubling? Do you think DaVinci was ethically wrong in creating the Mona Lisa; you do know she didn't actually look like that don't you?
By the way, I really loved your photos - and 'misrepresentation' in art is the very last thing I worry about.