MySpace


Photography Community



Last Updated: 5/21/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Female
Status: Single
Age: 98
Sign: Pisces

State: Florida
Country: US
Signup Date: 11/5/2006

Who Gives Kudos:


February 3, 2008 - Sunday 

Category: Art and Photography

One of our members needs some advice:

"Is it better to technically enhance your photography or just leave all natual.

st. john photography"

*SRE photography*

 
I would say it really depends on the "picture situation" because some pictures look really great how they are, but then there are some that just need a little help or they will benefit alot from a good fixing. It also depends on the photographer and their preference...I personally will fix it if it needs it...I don't just fix it just to fix it.......I have noticed that some pictures although they look great natural, look alot better in sepia or b&w....I hope this helps.
 
Posted by *SRE photography* on February 3, 2008 - Sunday - 8:38 PM
[Reply to this
~Sour Dulce~
Dulce X

 
Depends on the person. I think there aer some people that need help. Complexion, rings under the eyes, age spots. Some people aren't naturally photogenic. But you want them to have the best photo possible. So you help it out a bit.
 
Posted by ~Sour Dulce~ on February 3, 2008 - Sunday - 8:56 PM
[Reply to this
Erica Rae Photography
Erica Perry

 
Depends on the picture and what the photographer thinks is best for it. Personally, I like to enhance all mine, unless it was taken around sunset. I love the natural warm glow just before the sunset, so I leave those alone. :)
 
Posted by Erica Rae Photography on February 3, 2008 - Sunday - 9:10 PM
[Reply to this
AMH Photography
Tony Hogrefe

 
I think it is entirely situational dependent.

It also begs the question, "What is enhanced?"

I do my level best to do the work in the camera. Most of my digital images will have at least some touch ups (adjust levels, color balance, etc). I think it is real easy for a photographer to go overboard when using digital because it isn't anything more than a mouse click.

There is a point where a photo is no longer a photo due to manipulations. It becomes the photographers idea of an ideal representation of the image he/she captured, or it is changed entirely, and when put next to the original, it is hardly recognizable as being from the same image. Is that a bad thing? I don't know....it is for me simply because that is not my preferred style.

I do not take to the rendered painterly images we see everywhere. Pick up any magazine next time you're waiting in line at the supermarket. Unless it is a tabloid trying to make Britney look like a hat full of smashed assholes, whomever it is that graces the cover has been retouched and airbrushed to utter perfection, when we all know that even Eva Longoria suffers from the occasional butt pimple.

Now, allow me to step off of my soap box for a moment, and be a bit more realistic with regard to the business of being a shutterbug for hire.

If you photograph someone, and do your level best to create a beautiful photo of that person, and are successful in doing so save for the fact that they had a nose hair upon which the Keebler Elves could rappel and you didn't notice it before you shot the photo, by all means, remove it...your client will thank you.
--
Semper Fi,
Tony Hogrefe
 
Posted by AMH Photography on February 4, 2008 - Monday - 7:22 PM
[Reply to this
Jarnagin Photography (.com)
Brett Jarnagin

 
I digitally enhance every image that I print or post online. There is always something in an image that can be improved. It's just a matter of not OVER enhancing an image. I always touch up complexions, soften the skin, up the contrast, perfect the exposure, and a myriad of other small details.

I think it is just best to give your images that nice "finishing touch."
 
Posted by Jarnagin Photography (.com) on February 4, 2008 - Monday - 10:11 PM
[Reply to this