Years ago John,, the story was - " the camera never lies" - Now it is " The camera never tell the truth !"
I suppose if the resultant photo replicates what the yes see automatically, am OK with that but when software is used to give a false image, then , no, I am not than keen on it. Each to his/her own.
You have a fair point, but in this case I think the software enhancement is only bringing the picture more in line with human eyes. If I put my eye where the camera is everything is in focus.
More of an issue is probably my "loosing" the joint lines on the sky with my regular software, as this is enhancing weaknesses in the modelling not the camera. Which ever way you look at it there is an interesting discussion that could be had?
Digital images and manipulation seem here to stay. The ability to alter a captured image has also been with us for longer than some might realise as witness the tinting of monochrome photos from as long ago as the early 20th Century.
I believe there are uses and applications for this sort of thing but it should never be used to pass off second-rate photography as better than the original. It is still necessary to master some basic techniques to capture quality images.
Once that has been done we may play around with software, some of which can now do pretty amazing things, to our heart's content. Always with the proviso that, as numerous publications now require, we disclose any modifications made before placing the altered image into the public domain as our own work.
I had asked Chris Nevard if he was coming and could do just that. Unfortunately he'll be away on holiday, somewhere in the Med., whilst the show is on and his wife won't let him come back for a few days :exclam:exclam
