Hallo Don. How do you define "fake"? By what criteria? It's all subjective I reckon. Here's something I posted earlier about this stuff:
"I've said before elsewhere that the Nikon D70's images straight off cam (RAW) always look flat and underexposed, by design (to permit a wider range of post-processing correction). For ME at least, I tend sometimes to over-react to this off-cam insipidness in PS, and as I said earlier, I'm often too fond of "pop" in an image.
Having said all that, this image was taken in late September and there was rather more of a burnished, golden tone overall, which I clearly overdid in this image. With magenta removed however, it looks like lush May to me, so for this particular subject I think a point midway might be more "accurate". BUT this raises a question I put to our mutual friend Kathy Hillier the other day: where is the boundary between "photoart" and purely "documentary photography"? IS there one?
For instance, some folk on here replace entire skies, imported from libraries presumably labelled "dramatic skyscapes", and yet they do not describe their pics as "photoart". They seem to have no problem with this, including many award winners. Are these people merely painting with light? What is the photographer communicating to us? Could it be construed as "dishonest", and if so, against what criteria? Does it matter whether a sky has been added, that colours don't look "natural" or "accurate"? I do not know. I must admit though that unless an image is qualified on here as "photoart" or "alternative process" I broadly agree with you that "documentary photography" - images of record if you will - should receive minimal PS "treatment". Whether cloning out power lines for example, or other subjectively objectionable elements in a capture amounts to "photoart" I am not sure, and I return to the issue of boundaries and definitions".
Anthony, I can see what you mean, however, too much saturation may sometimes give it a "fake" look. What do you think? Thank you for your comments and your example.
This is a "painterly" image in my opinion, of great quality Don. Just a subjective tweak on an otherwise slightly flat tone (in the context of an image like this, and bearing in mind the time of year in which it was taken):
0 
{K:6661} 10/6/2005
