>>3834135>at least they leave the physical features in the same shape and place.i guess, but at that point i wouldn't even call it photography
anyway, i guess for me the point of processing is to fix whatever i couldn't get done with the camera (be it lack of skill or conditions or w/e) without i guess losing the essence(?) of the picture?
i mean sometimes i see something and i see it in a certain way in my head and then the picture is sort of that but not really, and adjusting a bit the light/colors/"focus" makes it look like what i (think i) saw...if that makes sense
if one just wants to make something and needs a non-copyrighted picture as a source, then that's more uhm...i dunno like design work or whatever it's called, and it's all fine but then I'll appreciate the processing and so on rather than the original picture because there isn't much of the original picture left anyway
>>3834172i don't think it makes a difference what gear they have desu, i think they just need high-res source to withstand the processing and that's about it
I don't have anything against the guy or so, it was just a good example of what j think is classic overprocessing, usually for the sake of appealing to a wider audience $$
I'm not gonna pretend like my shit is so original because i don't bake it for hours on end, i wouldn't even know how
