[pat_ernzen]

Originally Posted by henk4

first, I was at the track and waiting for the car to pass me but it did spin before that, so it is not "positoned" too far away, I simply had not enough lense to get it full frame....

Your comparison with Dali is out of order, personally I am a great fan of Jeroen Bosch's paintings.....

What I am trying to convey here is that we are a community with (semi) amateur photographers (or semi pros at best), who want to show what they see in front of their camera, and not what they would like to see.

I wasn't talking about the pic itself, but what you did with the pic. I wasn't trying to imply it's a bad pic or anything. As for the Dali thing, I was just try to convey a point. I just think that someone who has any respect for art at all should realize that post-processing is in no way, shape or form a bad thing. The more creativity allowed, the better. Post-processing is just another tool that allows the photographer to achieve what they're trying to achieve and in the modern world, a very important tool.

And this is why the debate goes on and on... "not what they would like to see" makes no sense to me. If you do any significant amount of photography (which you seem to do), you should be well aware of the fact that what you see and what the camera captures is very rarely the exact same thing. Whether it's white balance, exposure, DoF, etc. Take for example shooting something at dusk. The vast majority of the time either the object or the sky are going to be under/over-exposed. In reality, this is not the case. Cameras and eyes are not the same.