I'm a serious photographer. For myself, I'll create any imagery I want - after all, I'm not trying to convince a jury of something objectively true. The line that I personally choose to draw is to make it something that could be true - I won't do the crazy oversized full moons, for example. But that doesn't mean that nobody else should create such an image.
But I'll go back to my original claim, that EVERY image involves interpretation. The data coming off your camera sensor isn't readily interpreted by the human eye at all. It needs to impose some transformation to get to a visual representation.
Looking at it from the other way around, we're all aware that our own eyes are lying to us. We interpret brightness and shades relative to what we see around them, so just being in different lighting will make us see things differently. It's physiologically impossible to create an image that will always be seen the same, even by a single pair of eyes.
It's very similar to wine or whisky vs soft drinks. When you're making whisky you can select the ingredients, vary the process, age it in different casks etc but you can't add spices. If you're making a soft drink or something similar you can do whatever you want, just like in photoshop photography. Sure it's much more flexible but that probably also means that it will never be seen as quite as refined.
If you ask the average person on the street to name a photographer, probably the only answer you'll get is Ansel Adams. He's best known for his stunning imagery of America's national parks. I don't think there's anyone who would claim that his portrayals of them are inaccurate in any way, certainly not that they're lies.
Yet Adams was a master of darkroom manipulation. Part of what makes his portfolio so striking is his deft use of techniques like dodging and burning. This is certainly a bolder manipulation that something like aperture. He was doing this on film in the early-to-mid 1900s, so I think it's safe to say that this recognized master of traditional photography was already extensively manipulating imagery in many of the same ways that the unaware are currently decrying.
I’m not sure who is ‘unaware” of what but I do think that in general things that are more strictly “regulated”, where you have less freedom, like wine making, are more highly regarded. Maybe there are lots of exceptions, I don’t know. Perhaps it’s just because old art forms tend to be less freely controlled, and by their nature have higher status.
But with photography, are there any photoshop magicians that are as highly thought of as this Anselm Adams?
Photos have always been edited. This is putting technology into the reach of a few more people, but it's only "lying" if you believe photos represent some absolute truth. They really haven't since almost the beginning of photogrophay
I'd suggest looking up "Self-portrait as a drowned man" to see how far back that reaches: http://thenonist.com/index.php/thenonist/permalink/self_port...
"What is truth?"
I shot a music festival this past weekend, and I'm in the process of processing it in Lightroom. Part of what I'm doing is to make images that the artists can use for their own marketing. So I'm making various refinements to the images like making face a bit brighter and sharper, and smoothing out skin blemishes, and maybe whitening teeth.
Am I lying to people by creating an image that is brighter and sharper? Is it going too far to make the skin look smoother?
And even if we grant that I've changed beyond what the optics delivered, that's only part of the experience. Is it out of line for me interpret a bit to try to carry what's being lost from the rest of the senses - the fact that there was fantastic music all around, friendly people, and all that? Maybe a brighter, sharper face is a legitimate way for me to depict the gestalt of the experience.
I suspect you didn't even read my reply.
First, I never made any argument along the lines of "everyone does it". I don't know why you include that in your reply to me.
Second, the final paragraph of my reply specifically addresses whether it's "oversold". There's much more to an experience than can be seen from a photograph of the scene, and I think it's fair to try to capture some of that in the final image.
Finally, "it’s a lie made for profit." No, this is outright false. In fact, the music festival I was shooting was entirely free. Nobody paid a penny to see the performances. And the musicians performed because they love music and want to share it; they weren't paid a penny either. You're letting your own prejudices bias your judgment.
EDIT: and just to round out the not-for-profit thing, I was a volunteer, too. My own time, my own camera, my own computer and software. I love the music and I love photography. I do this because I want to give something back to the artists who are giving me their music.
If they're boring photos, sure. Great photos are great photos.
Sure, and additionally some decisions will be made for you depending on the underlying technology (e.g. film chemistry).
By "straight out of camera shots", the person I'm quoting meant a natural or realistic style, where images accurately (if not perfectly) represent what the scene looked like when the photographer took the picture. That absolutely doesn't mean "boring" — photos don't have to be over-manipulated or -stylized to be thrilling.
https://www.amazon.com/Instant-Cameras/b?ie=UTF8&node=291227