posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:50 PM
This is just kinda silly. In my college photo course, one of the things we learned and learned well is the first rule of modern digital
EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PHOTOSHOPPED. EVERYTHING. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Only something deliberately left "natural" by CHOICE hasn't been through an image processor at least once. Some in the class scoffed at that notion
and really believed their magazine of choice was above all that. The lesson came with the instructor bringing a bunch ..A LOT...of examples in later
showing covers and inside photos that were actually published
with major photo editing ERRORS. It removed ALL doubt. These weren't The Globe or
The Enquirer but major front and center national magazines of all kinds.
Is everything modified for nefarious reasons? Nope... MOST aren't at all. Just changing exposure settings or how the light reflects badly on something
or skin tones. Many were taking a few lbs off the model and it's something I was taught as part of that class. Adding and dropping weight. It's tricky
at first because everyone (proven by the whole class) wants to over-do it. A little goes a loooong way!
In this case and given the endless headaches they've had over photoshop processing images? I'll bet nothing but those very minor lighting/contrast
issues were touched and NOTHING of material substance. They'd be insane to change material facts in the photo and then specifically bring up Photoshop
by name as the program they'd ask people not modify the heck out of it with.
*Of course a couple sites have already produced dozens of knock off graphics and I gotta admit...some had me laughing my tail off.
edit on 3-2-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Minor adjustment of wording