On Nov 26, 6:31*am, Boater wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry, go steal one from another site, claim it's yours and post it.
That's FAR classier than photoshopping one that you actually DID
take.........