W G wrote:
It would appear that these days there is stuff all NATURAL about pictures from NATURE.
Most are over worked to within an inch of Armageddon.
A couple of moments preserved there but the amount of Photoshop bullshit even brings the validity of those into serious question.
Here is a winner from 19 yrs ago http://www.arcticphoto.co.uk/Pix/AN/03/ANT0508-24_P.JPG
I think the competition itself has driven the direction taken in these captures.
No shortage of camera skill, innovation and hard work to get these images, but the final goal to get that winning shot seems to be to go for that wow factor bedroom poster look.
Something that will sell the Wildlife photographer of the year coffee table book.
What is natural in photography anyway?
All film emulsions and camera brand jpegs look different, which one is natural?
Is it natural to leave the limited dynamic range of a camera untouched, or try to expand it at least a bit closer to what we see?
Are things like lens flare and motion blur natural or are they an effect?
The shot of the out of focus snail is a product of the camera and its lens, are things only not natural post camera?
The "Red Deer and Cranes" shot has a blue colour cast, is it natural because that is the way the camera saw it, or do we correct it because in nature that is what our eye does.
Colour from early printed media was natural in its day, now it is an effect on your phones camera.
Tech and the tools at hand are always going to blur the boundaries of what is natural, at the end of the day it is just personal taste.