[falconeye]

Only to the point when the tools aren't limiting them, aren't in there way.

IMHO, this is an inversion of reasoning.

As an artist, I have ideas and those ideas emerge from a combination of my fantasy and a mental model of what my tools allow me to do. It is subconcious.

Sometimes like in architecture, the tool actually is pure knowledge because the architect doesn't build himself.

So, if my idea is such that I only need a cell phone camera then this is great. Some art actually is only possible with a cell phone camera, like the sudden capture.

But other art will only be possible with a massive light-collecting lens.

Therefore, you are wrong in saying that artists don't care, only measurbators do ...

[Kerrowdown]

but lots of pro photographers - especially photojournalists, sports photographers - usually, don't have the luxury of time to do all the fancy photo editing due to time pressure and deadlines.

Here is the UK it's not a time issue, but basically it ain't allowed, PP with modern software quickly opens all sorts of ethical questions, only a little adding of contrast and sharpening is acceptable.

[Stone G.]

I hope you're aware that heavy software magic is also involved to get usable images out of Hubble captures....

I sure am - but image processing in science is something entirely different form applying aggressive noise reduction and sharpening algorithms "just to please the public".

Speaking about these matters, here are acouple of Pentax Q images (1/2.3" sensor - pixel size 0.00154 mm) of Jupiter and the Moon taken with the Q adapted to a 750mm f/5.6 telescope:

http://www.tomytec.co.jp/borg/world/blog/2011/09/20110917.html

You can convince yourself that in the original image, the Jupiter diameter is some 110 pixels wide.

With my *ist DL (0.0078 mm pixel size) I would need a 3800 mm lens to get the same detail - not because of the lens, but because of the large pixels. (Oh yes, I have tried with my 1000 mm 4" Newtonian).

With my K200D (same sensor size), I can do with a 2950 mm telescope to get the same detail - because here the pixel size is only 0,0061 mm.

So why don't I sell my DSLRs and buy a Pentax Q insted? Because I need much less amplification and get a much less noisy image with more "true detail"with my large, "crude" pixels.

[richard balonglong]

Here is the UK it's not a time issue, but basically it ain't allowed, PP with modern software quickly opens all sorts of ethical questions, only a little adding of contrast and sharpening is acceptable.

Ah, very true! I forgot about that.

[Philoslothical]

Here is the UK it's not a time issue, but basically it ain't allowed, PP with modern software quickly opens all sorts of ethical questions, only a little adding of contrast and sharpening is acceptable.

So it's OK for them to circumvent those restrictions by using in-camera processing?

If so, that's just silly.

[wildman]

Sensor size - do you really care?

...............No.

[richard balonglong]

With today's modern DSLR with its in-camera processing, it's still only allowed brightness/contrast adjustments, sharpening, and cropping, no special effects. In sports and photojournalism, basically, the idea is not to manipulate the image, not to add or remove elements from the photographs. =)