beautiful Trey – I am sure processing is a ‘slippery slope’ but know we can always count on you to be authentic!

Trey, I mostly agree with your boundaries in post-processing and I only feel comfortable adding shapes or objects to a photo if it’s visually clearly that this was done, say for example, a texture. As for removing things, I’m also easier about doing it, but I wouldn’t remove a building for example, if it’s obvious that it should be there.

About the content aware moving tool, maybe an acceptable use of it is in distorted corners of wide angle lenses shots. If you are warping or cropping with perspective, you may want as well to move a certain element in the corner just enough to prevent they from being cropped out, if it’s an important element in your composition.

I like to work with what I’ve got in an image. I’ll crop, sharpen, mask, multiple exposures, HDR, etc…. to create an image.

But I don’t like to add a moon or replace a sky cos they weren’t there!

As for the content aware move tool I probably wouldn’t use it cos I think that would be a step too far…. even though the elements would be there, it kind of takes the excitement out of the chase for the best composition I can get?

I like to see what hand mother nature deals me if it’s not that good then I’ll try again another day!

Anyway, content aware isn’t really an option for me cos I can’t afford CS6!

Mandy,could not agree with you more.

Gorgeous Photo!
Are you still using the same photomatix to bridge to PS, or have to started using PS alone for your HDRs?

I might remove a power line if it’s really really distracting, I would more than likely remove a tin can or piece of garbage if I hadn’t done it before I shot. I like the content aware tool but haven’t found a use for it yet. I will sharpen and enhance the colors or go HDR, but I am not a fan of composite shots, if the sky wasn’t there then try again. If I have a model and want a background behind her, then we go there, if we can’t we get creative in the space we have available.

I have fooled with the oil paint tool and find it fun for a few things. So far I am very happy with CS6. LR4 is better than I had hoped and I have actually converted all of my Aperture files over, not a fun thing …. but in for a penny in for a pound.

But all of the above is TODAY, tomorrow is another matter. Much like someones reversal on purchasing a new DSLR. Art is not only subjective, but ever changing inside your head and the best thing to do is go with the changes.

Wowee, I love this photo, Trey.  From top to bottom, it’s just gorgeous!!  I especially love the purple in the sky  As you know, that’s my favorite color.  Have a wonderful day

Great shot to day — I’m really enjoying the Disney photos!   When I go next month, I might not even snap any shots, you’ve gotten them all, I think

As for my line?   I don’t have any sense of purism with regard to editing photos.  Make it pretty and enjoyable.   If that means the shot is composited from multiple shots… so what?

For me it depends on the purpose of the image…In an advertising shot I would accept a lot more manipulation than in a landscape or a portrait. In a reportage or news shot I would disagree with adding or removing anything from MY image – the person wielding the camera is entitled to make decisions about what to include/exclude at the moment of capture, no-one else has the right to manipulate a reportage shot after the fact.
For me scientific images, photojournalism and reportage = little or no tolerance to removal/insertion of material. In landscape or portrait photography there is more room for manipulation and in advertising and editorial work the sky is the limit!

What are your limits when working with sky?  So many of your images have bautiful, multi-colored skies.  Blue and yellow; orange and purple or blue and purple like this one?  I have a hard time believing that you didn’t fool with them.  Do you paint color into the sky or just manipulate portions with color adjustments (using what is really there of course – just emphasizing one color and holding back another)?

Here is what I think, the line can be crossed between surreal and real photography at times. Its fun to do both, realist photograph can be just as beautiful as a sunset in person. However a twist on the new age art of photography can create other really cool photographs that are just different works of art.

I think it really depends on the context. For me,  If I’m presenting a photo as an editorial piece, then even removing power lines and stuff like that is only okay if you crop (it seems a bit arbitrary, but that’s sort of the expectation of your audience). If the photos is presented as digital art, or just a nice looking picture, I’m willing to do anything that will make it better. Comping on skies or repositioning objects is fine, since the photo itself is just the raw material for a finished piece of art. Photography is always an abstraction, so it’s not like you’re ever presenting “reality”. I think you can do whatever you like, just as long as you don’t try to dupe your viewers.

With the advent of Photoshop One, we passed into a new realm of photography. 

I think it might bother some of us if we do what some might call a “cheap compositing trick” and the result is an image that gets attention and admiration for that particular feature — in other words, you move the moon into a shot where there was none and it is THAT which most viewers — who are none the wiser — comment upon. But it’s all subjective, and your mileage may vary.

My biggest problem is that I use Lucis Pro on a MacPro, as well as Noiseware Professional, and neither of them work in 64-bit CS5.  Noiseware claims to have a 64-bit version coming soon.  But Lucis Pro has NO plans to do so.  Since CS6 will only run in 64-bit mode, this means I can’t use Lucis Pro at all…PERIOD.  That’s a pretty big investment to not be able to use it in the latest version of Photoshop.  I don’t use Lucis all that often, but it’s so expensive that I feel I need to at least try.  CS6 will prevent that.