BY RAW PHOTOGRAPHY I MEAN THE EDITED OUTPUT OF RAW FILES TRANSFORMED INTO IMAGES BY PHOTOGRAPHERS

Yes, I understand that raw photographies are not all the same and soulfull photography exist today. I also understand that all digital photography is data and there is no such a thing as photo that is more real than another. That said, I hate what most people do with raw photography.

A lot of raw photography resemble paintings more than photographs. If every single thing about a photo is completely perfect, I don't know. It causes me no emotion.

We hired a photographer to take some pitures of our kid. The images are beautiful. They also look like a deodorant commercial or an episode of Please Like Me. It is too perfect. The colors are perfectly in harmony to each other. The bright light spots were atenuaded. We have a naked lightbulb above the table and I know it should be blown out. In the photos, the lightbulb is much dimmer. I can see the bulb in perfect detail (which I can't even to the naked eye...), but the light coming from still manages to illuminate our faces in the same way.

I hate that we inadvertently reacreated a Pampers advertising campaign.

Many times people credited with creating a genre or style simply placed the final brick, standing on the shoulders of giants. But who had the most profound impact through both luck and effort?

I’m interested in any art form - theater, painting, film making, video games, etc.