PeggyC said:Oh, and someone mentioned the use of Photoshop --- to me, if I can tell it has been through PS, then somebody didn't do a good job.
The best results [ imo ] are those you can not detect.
It was I who mentioned photoshop earlier - and being very bad at it (and it was more at digital-darkrooming rather than photoshop proper).
I completely agree with your statement, though. If it wanders from a photo to something more at graphic arts, it loses its appeal to me.
All that said, post processing (or, to reuse the verb, photoshopping) occurs in the camera, too. The settings like white balance, light metering, color, etc., (and there are many, many others depending on the camera) take the raw (RAW) data from the sensor and process it into a .jpg (for most avocational photographers). The camera is making the decisions for us amateurs that the more skillful make in photoshop (or similar programs) when they're working with the RAW files.
So...there's a place for post-processing - be it in the camera or on the computer screen. But it gets done one way or another - and some ways (and some post-processors (automatic or by the skilled photographer)) return much better results than others. And that's my lament. I'd like to take the post-processing duties from the camera, primarily, to my (eventual) digital darkroom abilities and eye.
