Hee, heeeeeeeeee! As Eno would say, "Wrong again!" 

We started off with "WTFisedited". Now we have established that it was, in fact, edited. By God we're making progress! Maybe henceforth you'll be able to recognize an edited image! 

The reason you are guessing, and guessing wrong, is because you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to editing. It's that simple. Do it for a few years, like I have, and you'll know more than you do now, if you work at it.

Hey, NDSP, I won't argue with "not interesting". That's a matter of opinion and you are certainly entitled to yours. 

Seriously, I consider it the highest possible compliment when I post an image and someone thinks that it's not edited. Editing is merely a means to and end. You don't want to show off editing skills, you want to show off an image.

What was edited?

1) Overall contrast.
2) Contrast of individual selected areas.
3) Lighting.
4) Saturation.
5) Brightness.
6) Hue.

...to name a few.

Now you may think that the image stinks and I'm fine with that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there was a lot of editing done whether you can detect or not and whether you like it or not. I like it. I was setting out to make a somewhat cheesey, high contrast, high saturation, dramatic image. That's what I made. If you don't like it, don't buy it. 

...and that's the name of that tune. 

Hey, Bjornster! 

If you don't like the screenie then you don't like the screenie. I'm fine with that. I like it. That just proves that sometimes we have different likes and dislikes. That's kewl! 

Hee, heeeee! Obviously you read what I said BUT you didn't take it in. In the same manner, you looked at the image but you didn't SEE the image.

If you had taken in what I said you would understand that I didn't just simply apply "some colour filters". For example, had I just adjusted overall brightness and contrast, those changes would have affected the entire image uniformly. It would not have made the top and bottom of the image selectively darker. 

Hey, you're entirely welcome to hate the image AND there's no requirement to say why you hate it. You just simply don't like it. Now if you want to get into "WTFisedited", that's a different story entirely. To answer that question I posted the non-edited capture along side of the edit so that you could see with your own eyes what's edited about it. "One picture is worth a thousand words." You don't like the edit but the image IS edited and it was not edited simply by applying "some colour filters". 

Hey, Herr Bjorn! 

You can have your own idea about what editing is. It's fine to apply that to your own work and you may view the work of others in that light as well. However, I think that pronouncing an image as lacking in some way, because it doesn't fit your definition, is counterproductive. Why?

Well, some people don't have sophisticated editing programs so they simply don't have the capability of doing more complex edits. Some people, because of responsibilites at work and at home, simply cannot devote the time to it that they would like to. Some people only want to be casually involved with edits. Among those who are more involved, each is at a different stage of development. So, what's the point?

Are we to trash everything which is not at the highest level? What is the point of doing that? Are those with less sophisticated editing programs, less time to devote to making images, less experience and, perhaps, less talent to be relegated to the garbage bin? Is their work to be considered worthless?

You may have noticed that I don't say nasty things about people's work. Why? Well, first of all, I'm looking for the beauty in each image. Is there an image which has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Secondly, I want to encourage people to continue on. I don't want to beat them down just as they are getting started. All these skills are learned. We all start at zero.

If someone wants tough critique, they can go to Studio V and ask, as many do, that their image be torn apart. If that's what they want, the Studio V folks can be brutally honest with them but in a supportive manner. It is a good way to learn, if their ego can handle it.   

Others simply want to make and post images in the edited forum. They are not here to run a gauntlet. Like what they make, dislike what they make or be indifferent to it. That's your choice. However, passing judgements as to whether or not they are edited and what, precisely, is edited about them is meaningless. Just look at how silly this thread is, hee, hee!

Instead of looking at the image and expressing like or dislike for it, we got into "WTFisedited". Then, clearly seeing that it is edited, we got into whether or not that kind of editing is really editing! Next we can debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! 

The point is the image. Say something nice if you can honestly do so. Say something helpful if the poster is looking for help. If you must, honestly say that you don't like it or that it's not your cup of tea. If it looks really awful to you, consider saying nothing. Why? Because negativity has no inherent virtues. It's just negativity. 

That's a great angle for the Viggen and a real nice shot to show imo..  Nice one Don!