Nate is right. Digital photography requires some processing with imaging software. I shoot in the RAW format, which requires more processing than a jpg file. Reef aquarium lighting also dictates significant color temperature/tint adjustment.
I'm a grumpy purist when it comes to this issue. What you see in my images is what came out of the camera. I'm very much a stickler for not altering images beyond what I would do in a darkroom with film.
I also work hard to make sure I deliver accurate color, or as close to it as I can get. It took me several back-and-forth exchanges with Joe to get the hillae color right and, of course, we're always dealing with personal perception. Coral owners frequently see much more color intensity in their own corals than is really there (note that Joe is very realistic about the colors his corals show). In the 35-image stack of Joe's favia I posted the other day, he let me know right away that I was way off on the color. We both agreed that my version was much more attractive, but it wasn't accurate so I changed it. It's also important to remember that, depending on the lighting, the actual color can be notably different from what you see, or think you see.
To me, there is a distinct difference between photography and photographic art. Photography is the result of what the camera captured. Alter the image beyond the basics and the image becomes photographic art. I have no problem with images that are significantly altered, provided the photographer is up front about what was done and doesn't try to pass the image off as reality. I have a photographer friend who produces amazing images. They're often significantly altered, but she is very up front about stating that the original photograph is just a starting point for her. Then she works her Photoshop magic and amazing things appear. I love her work and am jealous of her skills, but have the utmost respect for her honesty and integrity.
Gary
