Upload & Sell: On
I don't think it is quite that simple, Mark. Only a few extremists would suggest that it isn't "OK to be creative in rendering." Virtually everyone else agrees that "being creative" in "rendering" is a normal and often a good thing.
The questions are more about the effect on viewers of certain approaches to "rendering" with certain subjects. In one sense, it is—obviously, I would propose—"OK" to do anything to any photograph. There are no laws against doing X, Y, or Z.
On the other hand, there are consequences for doing X, Y, or Z and a discussion of how those...Show more →
Makes total sense. Maybe what I should have said was: "I believe what we are essentially talking about is how creative it is OK to be in rendering."
I have always been totally fine with those who want to be literalistic. I go on an image to image basis. Even with my own work. But generally I have a preference toward the gray area of "in between". My personal preference also generally gravitates more toward the sublime/surreal. All I am really saying is that it is art and no one has the superior way, or should be telling others that their way is not as valid as their own. I see a lot of the work of the above mentioned artists very valid. I also see Nigels work as valid too.
BTW, I took another peep at Nigel's work and clicked on "Gallery" and found an immediate image that has a lot of Orton Glow/Blur on it and the saturation pushed farther than I would care to have it, if it was mine. So, he may say his renderings are natural, but at least that one isn't IMO. But, I dont care, he is an artist as well! I do like Nigels work and have followed it for years.