Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest photos
of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead
giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop to
see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in
daylight.



You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in
nature.

Fine. Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see photography
as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it
would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified image
that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be
accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as
influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.

Eisboch




It's not the photoshopping per se, it's the obviousness of overdoing it
I find distasteful except when it is done for a transparently bizarre
effect, like turning a sky green or suchlike. A little cleanup here, a
little touchup there, no problemo. You want to remove shadows under the
eyes or blemishes on the cheeks, hey, go for it. You want to slightly
lighten a dark hillside so some details show, great. I like subtle
touches. I prefer Mozart to Wagner.

I've seen lots of fabulous photos that have been photoshopped. But they
don't look photoshopped. That's the point, I think. Unless he/she is
going for the bizarre, a photographer skilled in photoshop produces
final images that don't look photoshopped.