On Aug 2, 7:56*pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:44 pm, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
hk wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote in ...
hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
I suppose it is for photographers not interested in life as it is,
or for photographers whose composition and exposure skills are
minimal.
I like life as it is. I like to take photos that look as close to
what I saw as possible.
We recently came across an old, forgotten box of family photos. *
One was my high school graduation "glamour" shot ..... you know,
the ones that were airbrushed back at the studio to remove a few
pimples, add a tinge of ruddy red to the cheeks and enhance the
color of the eyes.
In my case, I am kinda glad the photographer didn't simply
reproduce what he saw. *It wasn't pretty.
Eisboch
Did you have a flattop?
Here's a photo of someone's 14-year-old granddaughter.
Do you think it has been photoshopped?
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...eous/diana.jpg
Actually it was photoshoped, using CS3. *If you look at the exif data
you actually made 25 adjustments in photoshop.
I think she is a beautiful young woman, but the lighting is not
complementary to her or her skin tone. *The photo looks flat like you
had the light directly behind you when you took the photo.
How come the picture disappeared?
Because the guy I wanted to see it saw it.
Harry, I noticed you did not disagree with the fact that you
photoshopped the file in CS3.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
shhhhh, he's busy deflecting.. The guy is a fraud, every last post..
I had to download the photo to run the EXIF data, so I still have it.
The killer though is the photo would have been a really nice portrait if
he did not have her facing directly into the window.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's the point, he doesn't know anything more than I do about
photography. After the two stumpy pics, and the work he has shown us
today, hopefully we can put this whole thing to bed..