>>4063789> you photos are shit if you need to color them in postfair point, but I will now cope and defend my shit XD
1.) balanced RAW images are just documenting things (boring no matter what, if that same image was color graded, it would look better), and cyan is more captivating than the regular sky blue IMO, and if you want to get technical no photo has "real" color balance (sensors/color and your screen you are looking at), everything is skewed, so I just go and pick what I think looks the best on a screen/paper.
2.) Another thing is clouds, with RAW you can also increase the contrast to really see how their "shape" is, which you can't with your naked eye, so the editing gives you that extra to see more details (the silhouette photos). I like visible clouds, and "natural" pictures can't get you that, maybe low exposure, but contrast editing adds a lot.
3.) One bad day shouldn't represent you forever (editing tired eyes, pimples, dust/dirt on shirt or a random hair stray), things that you could have fixed in the moment but didn't due to bad timing shouldn't be a permanent representation of you in a photo. Also photos are still images, IRL you move, so due to the stillness, you start nitpicking stuff you wouldn't IRL. Also, many women use make up, you can pretend to say that everyone does it too, so editing tired eyes, pimples, dust/dirt on clothes or a random hair stray is fair game IMO.
4.) noise reduction and exposure editing... come on, try taking night photos and nail it in camera is almost impossible, my Samsung NX1 needs some polishing to make those night photos look alright.
The one thing I can't defend is me editing out the garbage in the Italy photos, I did it because it just "looked better", I just wanted some nice photos and the place was so dirty I couldn't do it (Venice is a tourist shithole), so yeah, they are super edited and fake and you can hate me for it.
