What is better?

The one that is better is the one that lets the artist produce the image that he/she is trying to achieve OR DISCOVERS in the final image. In many cases I have found BOTH to be desirable. I have numerous photographs which I have worked on to produce photographic images and then refined to create alternate images such as line art, back & white or monochromatic photos and images that make the work look like an oil or paster painting. I even have a couple that look similar to stained glass (and I hope to use them as patterns for stained glass pieces). My subjects/clients have liked the different effects for different purposes or situations.

Nowadays, one can manipulate an image in any way they want, you can remove elements of one image and insert them into another. Ah, the miracles of the modern world. As technology progresses there will be more advances in image manipulation. With all that can be done, technologically speaking, I sometimes ask myself have we gone too far, and can a person who is a whiz at photoshop and image manipulation (who also knows how to work a camera) be called a photographer? So then, to understand whether this is good or not is to know the difference between a photographer and a visual artist, or graphic artist. Is there even a difference? The camera was meant to capture a two dimensional still image of whatever is in front of the lens, that's it. Anything more and you move farther and farther away from the purest's definition of a 'photographer'. This of course, is subjective and completely open to interpretation. There are many photographers that do post work on their shots, but anything more than simple color corrections and sharpening is uneccessary to make a good photograph.

Effects like HDR are used to compliment the inherant flaws found in most digital image sensors, the absence of true dynamic range. An HDR combines the detail of both shadows and highlights in multiple and differing exposures into one image with more information at both ends than a standard image created by most digital cameras. That is why it was developed, but the use of tone mapping and higher order image manipulation parameters can allow for a bit of artistic latitude. So, the cartoonish or painting like 'look' of HDR images are usually exagerated features of the HDR generator program. Personally, I think HDR works for certain compositions, not so much for others and depends on a lot of factors but the best ones don't usually look cartoonish at all.

To answer your question in a more specific manner, post work on photographs can either be good or bad, depending on the composition and what was meant to be construed at the time the photograph was taken. Whether these images can be good or bad depends on who is looking at them.

I hope this helps...

well it all depends on the photo! you can do very little in photoshop and make that photo look AMAZING! but you can also alter it so much that it looks fake!

You need to experiment! try things, read books, totorials, just have fun with the program! Its hard to explain the answer to a person asking what you are asking!

go to barn n nobles, or borders! check out a few books!

and dont forget to have fun!

"Better" is too subjective, when you are discussing esthetic values.

Take classic art from the masters. Some like it a lot, some can take it or leave it, and some just dont like it. Same goes for various genres of music, haircolor, fashion, and so on.

As for the " to p'shop, or not to p'shop ", those answers can only be answered by the person creating the piece. "Is this what I envisioned??"

Anything else is mere opinion.

Opinions are like anal orifices. Everyone has one.

So, if you have a specific example, I would be happy to give my opinion.

Depends on what you are using it for. I would not photoshop my family pics. I want it to be real and reflect who we are.