wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:55 pm, JimH wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:52 pm, DK wrote:





Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
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.
It was conveniently deleted. WAFA caught in *another* lie.
Ping Richard: I rest my case #4.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

man, you are a whiney little bitch..

He's loyal to his King as pathetic as it is. I'll give him that.