Originally Posted by Travis
i am aware that a good digital camera can capture images, but it's obviously not that easy. A photographer who's goal is to show a realistic portrayal still has weighty responsibilities and craftsmanship. He/she must firstly find the image that is noteworthy to be documented (this could be the bulk of the work). Then it must be framed properly. Careful consideration has to been given to calibrate the camera in order to best reflect the integrity of the image. Finally, the image may require post processing if (a) the author failed to reflect the integrity of the image or (b) the camera by it's limitation failed to reflect the integrity of image.
If you document a scenic image that lacks quantitive quality, and as a result, you have to manipulate it by taking out this and adding that, I would ask why you journeyed out to document the image in the first place? If you are happy manipulating images to this degree why don't you just stay at home and create them from scratch?
The fact that many of "the greatest" photographers used trickery in some form or another does not deduce my argument. Their work can still be great.... but it is abstract... unless the methods of trickery used are to defeat the limitations of the camera.... then they are real...
I am not saying there is anything wrong with post editing an image to create the desired effect of it's author. If you edit the picture past it's point of truthful representation then the work is abstract. It can still have great value and be admired. :)