What isn't a "record" shot?
I would like to hear some opinions on what makes an image, whether it is of still life, wild life (avian and non-avian) or landscape qualify as artistic, competition worthy or of exceptional quality. There are some general principals accepted (often criticized) dictating composition, lighting etc but what is of more interest are there qualifications for excellence beyond these basics. Special effects (HDR, fractals and OOB images etc probably should not qualify for inclusion in this discussion and handled at another time). Many images are posted with very obvious extensive PP and we see some examples of coats, feathers and fur which may not exist in reality. Some of these seem to be record shots that have been rescued by modern electronic technology. When one sees a lion's mane look as though it has been shampoo'd, blow dried and combed one begins to wonder where the animal actors' trailer is. In reality the natural conditions suck and there are tangled manes, ticks, flies and other imperfections such as stones, branches and weeds to contend with. Presumably this is why we need processing instruments such as PS et al. OTOH there are many absolutely brilliant images displayed that are powerful, strikingly simple and clearly had a lot of time and imagination put into the capture, processing and output.
Thanks
Andre