Tanja and Greg:
There is a lot of truth in what Greg said. Whether something is in the 'photoshop' zone or not...? All I know is that colors have an emotional 'feeling-tone' in them. I guess a balance has to be struck. It seems that photography got a bad rap when someone decided that 'if you want it real, take a picture.' In those days painters were given a hard time for not being 'realistic.' I think it was the impressionists who said something to the effect, 'take a picture' if you want real, we do art.'
Why should a photographer care whether it was 'photoshopped?' So its not 'real?' What's real? I went to a photographic exhibit in a local museum, some of those photos were quite unreal. They showed some Andy Warhol Polaroids. Definitely not 'photoshopped.' If it wasn't Andy Warhol, you'd think the person just didn't feel like spending money on better equipment.
The photos were scratchy, some were out of focus and just plain 'weird.' But I thought they were great.
Absolutly right! A photograph hasn't to be real.
But in my opinion, an artist has to know as much as he/she can about color, perspective, all picture rules like "golden cut" (direct translation, don't know the english word), techniques, etc.
Our skills are the border for our expression.
The great impressionists are surly able to paint an realistic picture too. But they don't wanted. And so open a totally different viewing. In their time they are called "wilds". Now great artists.
A "no go" paint outside then, today totally normal.
Greetings, Tanja