I understand what Daniel is saying, but I think Larry is correct. It's not the editing, but the end result of editing. A camera is an artificial eye to start with and it too often doesn't see objects the same as a human eye. Editing to correct that can be beneficial for the photo. Here I have problems with glare. The combination of the Texas sunlight and my camera skills(lack of) tends to wash out color and make surface texture disappear in photos. That can usually be corrected simply by adjusting the brightness slightly. I take all my photos for myself, not really to be shown. They are for my records on what my eye sees. A skilled camera operator might do that as the photo is taken. I want them to show what is framed at its best so I don't really want something the grasshoppers have left after a meal, but aside from blemishes and bad forms, I'm looking for a depiction that's as close to what my eye sees as possible. Sometimes that is what editing can do. Adjusting color never works for me, but I can imagine there are times and skill where it could work. Some colors are tough to capture, but I have never been able to edit where it's an improvement. Too often photos just end up looking like a cheap sales attempt, sacrificing any semblance of reality. I think that is where Daniel is coming from and he's not wrong there. Using a flash usually alters the color for me, but it can sure outline the form of a plant sometimes. So it can be trade off for what you want in the result. My take on the subject anyway.
