[quote=samnooshka;16394] to ... the majority of my work now is unedited and comes straight from the camera,

That really surprises me Sam. I don't mean to have a pop at you, but in my mind, I thought the vast majority of your posts had been photoshopped?

Usually one that someone else has taken? LOL LOL

Yes I can explain the perfect photo, easy. The perfect photo is one you, or the intended reciprient, is happy with.

Bazza

making it brief as im a bit busy but can i ask why is when editing in a dark room, from film, is deemed perfectly acceptable but editing your images in photoshop, is not?

I feel that people get confused between a DIGITAL darkroom and computor graphics. The actual photograph has always almost been the foundations of the final image and has gone through some post editing - and even then you have to have a decent shot - you cant make a crap photo look good.

Not everyone who owns pp software is sloppy or takes crap pictures BUT it can encourage people to become that way - when a quick fix will do it.

It doesnt matter to me what tools are used, as long as the final outcome is how you percieved it to be in the first place.

Nobody said it was wrong KK, I asked the question about making or taking photos, which in my eyes, is what digital photography is, two types. Never did we see massive differences in dark room work like we see now, its a "new" thing, gosh we never saw a computer 20yrs ago in peoples homes, look at us now!

I've seen plenty of people posting photographs of birds flying, dogs running, people playing etc...all using bursts of shots rather than taking a single image!
Yet when you see the image posted, everyone comments on how great it is.
Is this really photography, or is it just a matter of pointing the camera at the subject, and keep your finger pressed tight, hoping that one of the dozen or so shots you capture, is the one you're looking for?

If you rule out the use of PS or any other editing software, then you have to start going backwards, and rule out all the technological advances in photography, right back until all you have is the original box cameras.

There is no perfect photograph, the same as there is no perfect painting, or perfect movie. Everyone will see your shot differently.

[quote=Mandé Daguerre;16523]Not my recent work all of the rally stuff that i do isn't photoshopped... if it is its usually because its an effect i am after, or to tidy up a muddy face. My portrait stuff is mainly clearing up spots and stuff as i mentioned earlier... and no camera can be so good as to make a portrait have flawless skin

Yeah, BUT if you dont use the correct settings to make the photos good, then it doesnt work!! So, understanding the camera and its settings helps you take the picture. A burst of photos is no different really?

You can take a burst of pictures using the auto setting, and no one would know the difference!
Just because you know how to set up a camera, it doesn't make you a good photographer, and it certainly doesn't guarantee you the " perfect picture."
By using bursts of shots, you are...in my opinion...taking another step away from the essence of photography. If you argue that PS shouldn't be used by purists, then some of the features of the modern camera shouldn't be used either.
In fact, the only way to truely take the " perfect picture " is to hang up your state of the art DSLR, and go back to film.

My answer to the original question is this: We have always " made " rather than " taken " pictures. We have always had to process the final image in some way or another. Photoshop is just the latest technique in doing so.