Aloha (I guess, but I"m not really feeling it),
So me and my buddies are hauling but down the road, On some mega photo shoot workshop thing, we have like a half a million dollars worth of the most sophisticated camera gear available in the universe in our van, and it's like; crap we haven't done anything all day accept BS about our bad ass gear. Self how did i get hear, this isn't my beautiful location, this isn't my beautiful sunset! This isn't my beautiful foreground element; Christ what have I done! People like orange right? OK that's what I'll do!
If the author is working to take the luminous out of the Luminous landscape and replace it with "f$*k it I'll make something up in post; this example goes along way way in advancing this philosophy.
I can remember once reading an article on this site, and really I could not tell you who wrote it and what it was really trying to tell me about. The subject was somehow connected print making, and how this guy was really good at it. It was the IMAGE that impacted me, a mostly subdued image except that a white fence had caught the light and offered this amazing contrast as it ran perfectly through his composition. Yes there were a bunch of images of what he did in nix, Lightroom, CS3 or whatever, and charts and graphs as he got the image ready to print. As a stand alone unaltered image, it was pretty Great. Getting it ready to print the artist showed us how he wanted to enhance the Luminous element of the fence to ensure that his Impression of what he saw and what the camera was able to capture, worked in balance and to his advantage in the final print. But the essence of what he was able to get on the camera was not altered only enhanced slightly. The impact and guts of the work had very little to do with something manufactured on the computer, and everything to do with light, understanding. experience, intuition, hard work and patience.
The article was an inspiration, not an invitation to meritocracy.
The final image was an idealization, not a fabrication. It was art, it was excellent photography.
I don't have a problem with idealizing something in a photograph, or using whatever means you as an artist feel necessary to create impactful effective work.
Your work is your work, it is what you keep close to your heart, and choose to share as a piece of that.
But please don't tell us that the camera, especially a 50,000 dollar camera system failed you.
One more thing before I finish;
Please stop the using Ansel Adams "the negative is the score, and the print is the symphony" quote as an excuse, metaphorically speaking; to photograph an image of a solo street violinist, and end up making a print from that photograph; that looks like the New york Philharmonic orchestra performing at the Carnegie Hall. In the context of who he was, how he worked and how he felt, this is completely wrong.
My two cents,