is it physically accurate image though? I think those untouched photos are accurate same as seen by naked eye
sure it's more aesthetically pleasing, but it's already distorting reality
personally I think photos should be most accurate representation of what healthy naked human eye see, no beatification, no bigger contrast or oversaturating despite making photos more appealing. if you twist reality where it will stop, where is the border of what is too much?
The goal for this might not be to be visually pleasing, but to recover the actual colors of what is underwater. And yes, in that respect it should be physically accurate. She uses a color chart and multiple images from different distances. The algorithm thus ensures that colors are neutral.
This is not what the eye sees, but in general, very, very few photos are. Do you also model the fovea in photos you take and make everything blurry around the center in the pursuit of greater realism? Do you shun long exposures of the night sky, as our eye can't see the milky way in that detail anyway?
It's a misguided goal in general, I'd say. Some photos aim to realistically depict a scene, some aim to artistically depict a scene, some aim to depict a scene to evoke certain emotions and either realistic or artistic might be valid choices for that. The list can go on, I guess.
In this case, being able to see and convey the actual colors of what is being photographed has scientific and artistic value.
sure it's more aesthetically pleasing, but it's already distorting reality
personally I think photos should be most accurate representation of what healthy naked human eye see, no beatification, no bigger contrast or oversaturating despite making photos more appealing. if you twist reality where it will stop, where is the border of what is too much?