>>2693488[...]
But now - with the digital possibilities the sky's the limit - and I've been told (and I firmly believe that) that no one in the whole world is able to fully and truly harness and uses ALL the options you have with software like Photoshop.
Or - in other terms - .. what about that irritating bird in the background, the mosquito-bite on the otherwise nice leg of the model, that nasty reflection in some window...
this I'd consider retouching and It makes for _me_ no difference if I had a big crew behind me, i.e. Makeup, Scene-Scouts, and what have you, in order to produce "professionally".
what I am talking about (trying at least) is what - if any - are the margins when altering photos in order to get a 'better look' on it.
>>2692241well. opinions. but that is what I asked for.
so there are many of them. and It seems to depend where I ask this question..
It seems that all comes down on myself and my decision whether I edit and if so how much a 'raw' photo - thus being aware that that array of digital data is nothing but a 'fake' in itself - and just the best my camera could get at the moment given.
I understand the statement it I'd be 'lying' if I tinkered with the photo... but I also imagine - if I had a better (digital) gear I'd probably do no edits at all on/to(?) a specific photo.
(I sometimes take a picture of some area AND a second of the sky above it - and compose those those together in post - just because I wanted to have details of the scene but wanted to have the structures of the clouds and color of the sky as well. with my cam not that easy to archive - due to the exposure and tha outdated sensor. (with an analog camera I'd have less difficulties to archive the wanted capture with _one_ single shot.)
[..running out of time for today.. hope I can write some more this night .. pls be patient with me .. ]
