Originally posted by Des Would you baulk at illuminating a waterfall with a flash, or using fill flash to reduce shadows in a portrait?
Absolutely, yes!
Originally posted by Des People have accepted the use of flashes in photography for years.
People have accepted a lot of things that aren't to my liking... and fortunately, they don't need me to like it.
Originally posted by Des Would you refuse to alter the white balance in post-processing?
If it changed the image from how I saw it through the camera lens - yes. No doubt about that. What if it didn't? Well, if it corrected a mistake to make it look the way I saw the scene, I'd probably play around with the settings, reach a reasonable compromise, but ultimately not like the results, anyway. This is one of the many paths followed to arrive where I am.
I have and do use a lot of tools to play around with pictures to do things that need to be done. Compressive sensing, super resolution, deblur, focal distortion corrections, HDR, digital filters, etc. But I really don't like the results. I do it when I have to. For example, there are some family photos that required extensive digital restoration. They preserve the record of the images, but that doesn't mean I like the way they look.
Originally posted by Des In fact most people now are quite comfortable with at least some measure of post-processing of images..
This is fine (of course), and I'll trust that you know I'm aware of such things, but you seem to imply this should weigh upon my own sense of aesthetic. If that's what you mean, I think it's a very interesting perspective. Do you find that your preferences are significantly affected by the preferences of others? I think that trait would be very important for a commercial photographer. The only one who has to like my pictures is me. That might not always be easy, but it's refreshingly straightforward. The complexity of catering to someone else's tastes would stress me to headaches.
Originally posted by Des You could argue that ALL photography is an artificial representation of reflected or diffused light...
I never underestimate the capacity of people to argue. For me, overcoming the artificiality is the challenge.
Originally posted by Des My point is that the dichotomy you suggest between "real" photography and "cheating" (or at least artifice) is rather elusive.
Personally, I find it to be a bit elusive, challenging, and when the shots matter most to me - frustrating. But that's okay. It's also fascinating.
If it wasn't clear, I do appreciate the talent and effort and skill required to manipulate an image. Like a Picasso... I can appreciate it without actually liking the result. I hope that analogy hit the right chord for anyone upset that I think they're "cheating"... but now with apologies to all the Picasso aficionados out there. And so on.