stoneinapond
Veteran
Nope. Not a fallacy at all. A recorded image that is closer to the actual scene information is technically superior. Visible artificial sharpening, visible artificial noise reduction and visible compression artifacts are all inferior to a signal that has not been molested by that processing.
Do you wear glasses? Do you adjust the diopter on your EVF? Which is the "real" image? Glasses on or off.
So you have your raw data. What do you do with it? Post it as is; projected it untouched? I hope not. You process it. Yes, you have more control over that process if that is what you want, but you still need to process it.
And to think that the infinite reflections of light can be guided down a tube using optics, deposited on a sensor before anything else is done, that somehow that is a semblance of reality, is in itself a huge fallacy.
I will grant you accolades for one thing. Your use of a term that potentially subjects an image to psychic damage with implied immorality is a tour de force, a line worthy of a great novel.
Bravo.
Look, at the end of the day all we have left, at any level of artistic endeavor is this. Do I like the image captured and does it serve its intended purpose.
Go choose your tools.