Untitled

I´ve been snapping some autumnshots. Thereafter they have been "super-

naturified" to make them look more the way I felt they should have

looked, rather than how they actually looked. Some people have a

problem with that. Is it still a photo or is it "just" a picture?

It is a nice photograph, a nice picture and a nice piece of art.

A lot of skill is required both pre and post processing of photographs, you only have to look at the standard of chemist prints. It takes skill to print a picture either in the darkroom or with a computer. Well done.

Who's to say that the way it was captured originally in the camera, or on film, is the right way. As long as you didn't make it look unnatural, your alterations work for me.

By the way, the picture could use a bit of sharpening. It's best if you mask off the sky and the clouds when you run the sharpen filter.

...and that's a nice one. Whether the "supernaturalization" was done with Velvia or Photoshop doesn't matter to me.

I'm unclear about the difference (if there is any) between using vivid saturation film, using filters and enhancing saturation digitally. In each case we are trying to make the image reflect what we see (or saw), or wanted to. Is one more real than the others? I like to think I'm basically a purist, but I think purists who find fault with images like this for being digitally enhanced are just snobs.

In any case, I like the photo with the range of color, the blue shades in the sky, green field and autumn leaves.