Who made you the Boss(es) of the World? ;o)
Please not to lecture the rest of us about "honesty" or imply that "heavy" digital editing of photos is almost a sin.
I agree that editing can't fix everything. However, if skillful editing takes a poor photo to the level of a presentable photo, where's the problem with that? Who, exactly, is it hurting? (Of course it's best-- and nicest-- to get a near-perfect photo right out of the camera, but I fail to see the problem if someone devotes the time, effort, and skill [yes, skill] it takes to improve a mediocre photo.)
Certainly there is such a thing as over-editing. (I do it on purpose sometimes, myself, just for the fun of it. ...And possibly I sometimes do it not on purpose.) But seriously, who's to say what is over-edited? Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? Unless you're entering your photo in a contest or submitting it for critique to an instructor or a group of peers, chances are that no-one's going to come out and berate you for your obvious Photoshop addiction. ;o)
I think what really irks me about the way some people write about post-processing is the implication that editing is somehow inherently evil. It's not. I'm not a professional photographer, and I don't spend
It's not dishonest to clone something out of the photo. It's not "bad form" to lighten, darken, cross-process-- whatever. Go ahead and add filters-- all day long, if you like. Layer multiple photos! Stitch things together! Put your mother as a baby into the crib beside your newborn son! Who says the lines between "photography" and "digital art" have to be crisp, firm, and unwavering? Photographers have been manipulating / post-processing / editing photos for almost as long as photos have been around-- long before Photoshop came along. It's nothing new-- nothing scary-- and (usually) nothing nefarious.
I do hope you will at least consider my position before penning your next diatribe against so-called "heavy" photo editing.
Thanks so much!