|
I know where you're coming from Marc and I agree - partly. I guess I'm also thinking of shots using the Hubble palette, starless views of nebulae, planetary shots with their overexposed moons combined in the scene. They all look pleasing but are they representative of what came through the OTA to the sensor? Photography is an art and can be a form of science as well. I personally like to keep things as natural looking as I can but also fall into the trap of over sharpening or over saturating my shots to make them look pleasing. It's a fine line and defining 'real' is difficult, defining 'art' is conjectural.
|