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.