I've got to echo DD......KUDOS on the compliment-its truly a sweet vindication when someone, let alone a professional, applauds this medium we all enjoy.


And its not that I'm opposed to Photoshop, but for me personally it seems to take too long to do the touch ups, so I don't bother.......of course, that's an oxymoron in itself since I don't remember half the time how to work the damned program :rolleyes:

It's not that she thinks a "P-shopped" photo is bad, she's just a purist when it comes to taking pictures. She enjoyed a lot of the pictures on the site and did admit that the effects added, like laser fire, or jet blast, looked cool and added to the photo, but those with out looked just as good too.
She's not a photo journalist, she takes a lot of scenery photos, some of which have been used in Arizona Magazine and travel brochures. She has a stipulation in her contracts that says no editing can be done except for cropping.

I know what you mean about the nekkid lady books and their models. I've known a few fasion models in my day and yeah, a little bit of editing can go a loooong way. Some parts are edited that you'd never think of being editied. Too bad really, but it explains our desire for unobtainable perfection in women.

I think we DO have to PS our stuff. Hanging strings and wires would make us look pretty pathetic, don't ya think. And Star Wars without laser but colored sticks being thrown would be beyond B-rate! lol

There is balance and well, some people can take the PS stuff to the next level. I wonder if she can tell the difference between a regular foto and a photoshopped one in terms of natural landscapes. And ask her what she thinks of CG.

I havent gotten into the Photo Shop world and I dont think its necessary for dio pics. This doesnt mean thats its not cool thow. I do want a Photo Editing program for Gunfire,Fire,and some Weather effects!!! Its nice to see a good balance of Photo editing when there is good Stage/Setup in a shot.

I was a Photojournalist and we all use Photoshop. Mostly to brighten, sharpen, color balance, and to remove dust spots sometimes. It is against our ethics to, for instance, remove a person from a shot, but it is isn't against our ethics to make the sky bluer, the clouds whiter, etc.

Slightly different for microscopy pictures in science, but along those lines. You take 2-3 pictures all of the same field with different filters. 1 bright field to give cell count and morphology, the rest set to the filter of your fluorescent molecule/tag (usually red and green, although there are yellow and blue filters that cost more). One can mark a particular protein or cellular structure, and you then merge it all together in and get a distribution. It was fun and I hope to get back to it soon or later.

Photoshop is an awesome tool that can be used to enhance a picture or make a picture possible that is otherwise impossible to take. With that being said, there are universal factors that make or break a picture regardless of whether you are using photoshop or not. Posing is probably the most universal thing people agree on. Regardless of how well your setting and lighting are, or for that matter your muzzle flash and blur effects, if the figures are just thrown into the photo it really takes away from the sense of illusion that these are not little four inch plastic men. You put crap in, you get crap out!