thank you all for your responses!
>>2691576nah, as for we primarily did the pictures for her I'd only shoop out nasty things like mosquito bites. I overall like her body and would not modify anything concerning her appearance... well - eye bags may be an exception ;]
>>2691581>>2691584that's what I'*ve heard as well. but then again - it IS done by the big industry.. I agree that it is quite easy that you can turn an uninteresting image/motive in to an interesting one by heavily editing it/ iw. false-colors and such.
but this is another topic IMHO.
I am interested in the question how much it is 'ok' to boost it a little bit - letting the image 'as it is' with some small alterations, such as it comes along as it was done nothing to it at all
(excuse my bad grammar/English - for English is not my mother-language - I hope you catch on with what I am trying to say)
>>2691585so .. my question is not that dumb after all. good to know :)
I hope this thread stays on for a day or two so we can harvest/gather some opinions/intel about the topic.
My guess is, that having a 'feel' for contrastt/colors in Photography and how they are best received (thus - composed by the producer in order to be "consumed" aka viewed), is a matter of a) practice/experience and b) gut feeling/intuition and ideally Talent
>>2691586camera is fine? .. really? - it is my first and only camera - and it drains battery so fast that I seldom use it. plus - in the meantime my phone has a greater resolution/ more MegaPixels than that thing.
thanks for the constructive critique!
but please elaborate. what Do you mean by the "corner blown highlights " ? (it is my lack of English/vocabulary here that lets me look stupid)
and yes - that was my concern - too much green...
how could I get this "national-geographic-look" without boosting the colors too much?
