[Parallax]

There is no such thing as an unprocessed image. I've seen people state something like "I don't post process. I try to get it right in-camera". Well, guess what. When they get that perfect-in-camera digital image it was processed. The person(s) who wrote the in-camera algorithm processed it and it is processed again by the program used to display it on the monitor or print it. In the case of film it's done by whomever developed the film and print (or programmed/adjusted the processor).
Every photographic image ever seen was post-processed in some way by someone. To me the best person to do it is the person who was there when the picture was taken and knows what the scene actually looked like and knows how he'd like the rendering to look.

[ThorSanchez]

I get mildly annoyed when people post photos online and specifically point out that it's SOOC or "unprocessed" or "just used the Lightroom defaults, didn't touch it otherwise." As if that's somehow superior. It's not a contest to see how few sliders you can touch, it's trying to make the best photograph.

[house]

It's not a contest to see how few sliders you can touch

Are you sure you didn't stumble into a sooc competition?

Joking aside its mostly when showing off lenses or cameras those kinds of comments are made? There is of course the assumtion that people process for more vivid colours and more sharpness. The information that its sooc will help assessing the scene and the gear which can be useful in some contexts.

[bogwalker]

I was talking about it with one of my friends the other day, he asked why so much editing was needed for fixing skin and such, when cameras are "as good as they are now". My reply was along the lines of "yes, they are incredibly good at making us look detailed. That doesn't mean they make us look good when it's guys like us in front of the camera, we can't pose if our lives depend on it "

Taking images that good can certainly be a detriment. For instance, when TV started making the transition to HD, more than one news reporter was apprehensive about how detailed their images were going to be, and everybody (men included) were going to need more makeup. And if you think about it, makeup is post-processing that's been accepted for millenia. I don't care for the Tammy Fae Bakker approach, but apparently some people like it. IMO, If you notice the makeup, it's too much.
And then there's plastic surgery. Years ago I read about a Chinese couple where a man divorced his wife after they had an ugly baby and then he found out that she had had extensive plastic surgery. Apparently some post-processing is okay, but outright deception is not.

For my photos, I liked that line "I don't take pictures of what was there, I take pictures of what I saw". If I remember colors and sharpness, they should be in the picture. I'm just making it more accurate than SOOC.

[arnold]

To me, if it is obvious, it is usually too much (like overdone ladies makeup). On the whole, I guess I am not a real fan of the fine art genre for this reason. Some remind me of the velvet painting style. No offence or universal judgment intended, it is just my personal reaction.

[bogwalker]

Most of my photos will never be seen by anybody outside of my family and close friends, so it's a moot point for me.

But this is obviously a bigger issue in media. It's surprising how much they change the photos for models on tabloid covers for instance, making unrealistic ideas of body shape.

And then there was the famous O.J. photo on I think Time magazine, where they made him darker (and more "dangerous") than the exact same photo used on a competing magazine cover.

[RobA_Oz]

To me, if it is obvious, it is usually too much (like overdone ladies makeup). On the whole, I guess I am not a real fan of the fine art genre for this reason. Some remind me of the velvet painting style. No offence or universal judgment intended, it is just my personal reaction.

I wouldn’t have considered “fine art” photography to consist of one single genre.

Your point about women’s makeup is a good one, but that’s a personal choice, nonetheless. What many young women possibly don’t have any idea about is colour temperature and the consequences of making up under some artificial light and then going out into daylight, where their faces look green, and not the colour of their necks. Perhaps I’ve misjudged it, though, and it’s really a new form of Kabuki makeup.

[pacerr]

Don't tell me what to do with my photograph. I'll do what I want.

Aye. You may as well try to direct my day or my life . . . in which case you must accept responsibility for the results, not I.

You may offer advice or suggestions and I may either embrace them or ignore them.

[normhead]

Aye. You may as well try to direct my day or my life . . . in which case you must accept responsibility for the results, not I.

You may offer advice or suggestions and I may either embrace them or ignore them.

Weird how offering an opinion can be construed as "Tellin me what to do."

When I was told what to do, my dad was right there, and he made sure I did it.
Something like "your sensibilities don't align with mine" might be a more accurate way to state this sentiment.

I've never once expected someone take my advice and do exactly as I said. IN class I often demonstrated a concept in class, but then told the class, if you do what I did you'll only get an average mark. If you can use the concept in a creative way, other than what I demonstrated, you get high marks." Demonstrating a method and concept isn't the same as telling others what to do. However, there is some serious "looking down the nose at some techniques" going on from time to time. Everyone works out their own way suited to their own sensibilities and shooting style. That's a good thing. But I'm still going to tell them how I do it, for their perusal. Maybe they might find some value in it.

[swanlefitte]

Kabuki is a good point. The make up is an enhancement. Many rock bands use make up. Kiss got the style from kabuki. They also use fireworks and mechanical devices. It may distract from hearing the music but it enhances the experience of the music.

You have to ask what you are going for before you can know if it is distraction or enhancement. You have to assume you know what someone else was going for before you can know in their case. If you can assume with a reasonable degree of certainty, they are doing something right.

This means you can only criticize good work. The bad just leaves you wondering.

[Glen]

It's very simple. If your photographs are labelled as fine art, you can process/modify/add/remove elements as much as you wish. If not fine art, means reproduction of real world, then modification is unethical. Just say you do fine art photography and you'll be fine.

I would go even futher. Unless the photos are for Journalism, forensic or other similar purposes, a photographer can do what they want to enhance it. If doing so will mislead people, it is not appropriate. It's just that simple.

[AggieDad]

Let's add a new twist to the discussion.

I was just watching a video about finishing panoramas. The presenter was concerned with all the that was lost when a pano is cropped after stitching. For landscapes (organic, if you will), he suggested having PhotoShop do a content-aware fill. in the example he used, he undid the automatic crop and brought the edges back out to the extremities of the stitched pano. Then using the magic lasso and content aware fill, he had a much larger pano image.

So here is a case where not only is something being added to the image, but it is a make-believe something that is being added, created by the software – not the post-processor.

Of course, it could be argued (part of the original post by the way) that being a pano already means there is significant manipulation. Fun!

[swanlefitte]

I use fill over sensor dust all the time. I have filled edges also because it is far more distracting to have a missing edge than a touch up.

In real estate photos this is often done. Never to alter a permanent thing like power lines but to fill in a ditch where underground cables were just run. The intent is to show what the house will look like when bought. The picture is neccessarily from before then and must show the future time as accurately as possible.

[photoptimist]

Automagical content-aware fill certainly does seem to step far over the bounds between photography-as-documentation and into photography-as-fiction.

That's especially true for panoramic images because photographers often intentionally limit the four edges of the panoramic frame because of non-representative or undesirable subject matter beyond those edges. Thus, the algorithm is very likely to fill in the wrong subject matter.

[swanlefitte]

This is pretty interesting. What light truely portays a Vermeer painting?
https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/eyes-response.html

SoLux was used to illuminate Vermeer paintings at the National Gallery of Art in Washington. An experiment was set up so the proper amount of footcandles (20-30) illuminated each painting. The observers were able to adjust the lighting to the most preferred color temperature using SoLux at 4700K and standard MR-16's at 3000K while maintaining a stable footcandle level. The color temperature that was most frequently chosen was 3500K. This was a little bit surprising because 3500 appears yellow-orange to the eye under normal viewing conditions, and the spectral power distribution supports this.

These findings could not blamed on untrained eyes because the people at the Vermeer test were professionals with many years experience in the lighting of art. (A curator from the National Gallery of Art and the NGA's chief lighting designer were amongst the group) However, it was noted that museum light levels are much lower than standard light indoor light levels. Does light levels at extreme
highs and lows and at points in between impact the eye's perception of color? Historical and empirical evidence suggests the answer to this question
is yes.