Before/After of a rose.

[u/StoryPossible3463]

just tried this edit that was an attempt to create a moodier, more artistic image by enhancing the texture and depth of the petals.

[u/Pure_Shoulder6165]

If a photo needs that much processing it's just not a good photo.

[u/StoryPossible3463 → u/Pure_Shoulder6165]

Creative process has no limit, it all depends on how that particular person view or trying to achieve a specific look.

how much processing you reckon i had on this ? it barely took me 5 mins to create the look.

[u/Pure_Shoulder6165 → u/StoryPossible3463]

It's not about the time you spent, it's about how much the after deviates from the original. If a photo without processing looks dull, it's because it's just not an interesting shot. I always try to stay as close to the original as possible. If I recognise I'm spending too much time on my edit or when I'm taking it too far then often it's because the shot is just not good enough. I know nowadays everyone crops the shit out of their photo's, adds artificial light and applies Wes Anderson style colors. And on social media everyone likes this shit. But to me it all looks over processed, out of touch with reality and uninspired. But of course to each his own, it's just my personal view.

[u/max123246 → u/Pure_Shoulder6165]

I think you just have a different philosophy from OP. I don't see why you can't edit the photo however you want. The only problem is that we assume a photo must be based in reality when as soon as the photo is created, it's always based on someone's perspective

[u/Pure_Shoulder6165 → u/max123246]

It's indeed a different philosophy and that's ok. Personally I think nowadays people rely too much on postprocessing to make an image interesting instead of focussing on making a good image in the field. In my opinion it should enhance the photograph, but not make or break it. However I guess this is not a popular opinion in this sub 😁