I'll admit I've found some of Mike's landscape images to be excessively dodged and/or burned, but that's just a matter of preference. They're his photos, so he can process them as he wishes.
I think it's worth noting that much of what's done in processing digital raws is nothing new. Photographers have been slapping filters on their lenses, shooting with specific film (warm film, cool film), and experimenting in the darkroom for a long time. It's part of the trade.
I've managed to make some incredible images shooting straight JPG - just tweak the curves a little bit in Photoshop, and it's good to go. But I've also
lost some incredible images shooting straight JPG, either due to poor exposure, poor saturation, bad white balance, etc. Pros and amateurs - it happens to all photographers. By shooting RAW, however, I can
save most of these images, and it usually requires very little tweaking. As for the shots in which I did everything right? Even those shots are going to look dull and uninspired straight out of the camera. That's just how digital SLRs work (unless you do processing inside the camera). The shots are MEANT to be processed. The question is, do you want to be stuck trying to process a lossy JPG image using limited tools, or would you rather work with a lossless RAW image in which, for all intensive purposes, the sky's the limit?
Does a processed image reflect reality? Depends on how much you process it. But it's not like an unprocessed image is a carbon copy of the scene, either. Obviously, every photographer has his/her own priorities, but for me, photography is about
making images, not simply recording history. If all I cared about was recording history, I wouldn't be walking around with a $1000 camera, a bunch of expensive lenses, and a bag full of filters. I'd go to Wal-Mart and buy a $5 disposable Kodak.
Anyway, an example of what a minor amount of tweaking can do...
"Uncooked" goose - Straight out of the camera (except for the resizing, obviously...I didn't do any sharpening, so it'll look a little softer as a result). Is it properly exposed? It's in the neighborhood. I was shooting with a polarizer to kill the reflections on the water, and was working with late afternoon sun. Because of the polarizer, I lost a couple of stops, but rather than compensate at the point of the camera, I chose to underexpose the shot. Why? Because I was shooting RAW and knew I could correct it later on with ease. Even if I wasn't shooting RAW, I'd still underexpose it, as it's easier to correct underexposure in processing than it is overexposure.
"Cooked" goose - So, what did I do? I tinkered with the white balance, obviously. After that, I balanced the shadows and highlights. Upped the contrast and lowered the brightness some (this is a personal preference). Sent it on to the Photoshop, resized, and sharpened. That's it. Nothing special, really...didn't play with the saturation, didn't dodge or burn anything.
It took very little processing, but the difference in the two images is pretty stark. I think it's clear which one looks better, but everyone has their own preference. I'm pretty sure the original wouldn't catch anyone's eye, though.
