D.Duck wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq." wrote
in message ...
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?



Wow, now that was fast. I guess he didn't want anyone else to see he
made 25 adjustments in Photoshop CS3. I originally looked at the EXIF
data because I thought he used his in camera flash and that was why it
was so flat, but nope he did not use any flash, I couldn't figure out
why he didn't have her turn slightly one way\ or the other.