Not so.
Not so.
I'm back from shooting some 6x9. When someone looks at this stuff, they know if it was manipulated or not. With digital alien skin, someone looks at xif data and they can tell it's digital.
I'm a film guy and I get a photograph. Do all you want with digital processing but remember it's not photography it's digital image manipulation and post processing. It's not film nor photography, it's a digital image from a sensor.
So NOT true.
Only you know how "authentic" your images are. And, so, unless it's for journalistic/recordkeeping purposes, it's a matter of narcissism only to suggest that it's not manipulated. In my mind, it's only important that i not SEE the manipulations. I don't like 'created scenes' that look like created scenes. What i do appreciate, though, is an interesting image. It doesn't matter to me if Ansel Adams moved a moon or burned out a bush. As long as i don't see the 'falseness,' i accept the photograph for what it is.
With EXIF data, it is a simple task to strip it from a photograph. And, Alien Skin, or any other plug-in, leaves no EXIF signature, even if the EXIF is left intact. You won't know if a picture was shot 'straight' on digital or if it was heavily composited and manipulated.
And, if retouching, and plugins are done well, no one will know. The problem is that EVERYONE has a computer and Photoshop, and so EVERYONE tries to do something with an image, and you have lots of examples of bad work out there for everyone to see. But, this doesn't have to be the case. There are also lots of Leicas out there, and lots of bad photos shot with them. But, no one condemns the camera, do they?
My bottom line is this: I have a favored portrait subject in Brazil. I've shot him three or four times. I've used a Contax 35mm with film, a Canon 35mm with film, a Hasselblad with film, a Leica with film, and a Canon 5D digital. Out of all of those exposures, i 'like' maybe 5-10. There are a couple of those that i do not remember whether they were shot with the Hassy or the 5D, after i finished with them. They were shot a few years ago, and i just don't remember. I could go back and look for the original negatives or the original digital file to find out. But, i don't want to know at this point. That just signifies to me that it doesn't have to matter.
One needs to remember history, as well. Before photography, painting was the 'true' art form. Photography was a 'cheap' and easy, false medium. But, no painting was ever "unmanipulated." That wasn't the criteria. And, now, photographers with memories that don't reach far enough are insisting that whatever THEY do is the only authentic form.
At what point do you evaluate the merits of the image, rather than boast about the method? Is an interesting digital image worth less than a banal film image? Does shooting it on a cumbersome view camera make it more interesting to look at? Most of the best photographers currently shoot digital for at least some of their output. Are we supposed to believe that those digital pictures are not as VALID as, say, MY worst Hasselblad+Tri-X exposure?