> I do have to say that all of my shots are indeed ‘Photoshopped’. I always work on my images to make them look good on print and social media. I change contrast, vibrance, saturation, make color adjustments, etc., so you can call them ‘fake’ in that regard. But I don’t change the moment.<p>I guess it isn't totally clear what "fake" means. But it doesn't seem wrong to say that processing your pictures in photoshop makes them fake.
THIS GUY! I was laying in to him on reddit just a few days ago for him consistently claiming that his pictures are single photographs, when he then says the same photographs are made up of 'multiple shots'.<p>It's no difference from fake imaging we've had since before photoshop ever existed. Intentionally screwing with the development to create something that has never been seen by the naked eye.<p>And yeah, the problem is him posting it to r/earthporn which specifically is for real scenes that look like real life, and not posting to r/photography or r/pics, while only reluctantly admitting that the shots are composites.<p>This one, by him, posted in r/earthporn does confuse me a lot: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn/comments/a8tzbf/top_down_view_of_the_bottom_of_a_glacier_river_in/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn/comments/a8tzbf/top_down_...</a>
I consider these photos fake. It has nothing to do with how the photo was taken or edited and everything to do with how closely the photo corresponds to my perception of reality. To me, great photos are always pushing this boundary but these clearly break it. That said, I can appreciate the photos for what they are.<p>I remember the first time my partner saw the milky way. She was disappointed because in her mind it was supposed to look like one of these photos.
The photographs are amazing (the volcano spewing a Milky Way is just awesome), and I empathize with the photographer's frustration.<p>However, if his complaint is that, in general, people are too quick to be skeptical of things they see on the internet, well, I can't exactly get behind him on that one.... :)
Nearly every astronomy photo you’ve ever seen of a planet, nebula or galaxy is “fake” because they use multiple exposures and filters and software to process them. Does that make them any less amazing or less real. I don’t think so.
lol they're all Photoshopped as hell.<p>In the first one with the sunset, you can see where the sky meets the dark landscape and there's a weird black glow that bleeds out from the ground. That's what happens when you blur an image and blend it back onto itself, perhaps if one was trying to get a 'bloom' effect in Photoshop.<p>A demonstration:
<a href="https://imgur.com/a/vMA6dm3" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/vMA6dm3</a>