Doctored photos? - Page 1

would you consider this doctored???

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/picturegallery/3151.html

 I call it art.  Just curious... some people just like something different, IMO as long as they're not doctoring toplines or pigment/color I see nothing wrong with being creative.

 Regards,

Melanie

The backgroud of a picture is pretty irrelevant whether it be grass, mountains, trees, and the like.  I also like some of the photo collages that people create.

Photoshopping the dog to make it look better, on the other hand, is definitely not cool.  Just watch the ads that pop up on this site, and occasionally you will see a tomato red show dog that looks like it's been kenneled too close to a nuclear power plant.  The easiest frauds to spot are the pictures with an exaggerated yellow/red pigmentation through the photo - grass, fences, etc.  Some of them are painfully obvious. 

 When I take pictures of my club members training, I always use photoshop to correct for over/underexposure.  Sorry but I'm an amateur, and often in the bright sun the scene is washed out.  However, I just fiddle with the picture to make it look life-like, not to enhance the dog's appearance for sale.

Yvette

I don't like the background change...it always makes me wonder, "If they've changed the background, what else could they have changed." 

http://www.ehretgsd.com/CiroAd3.jpghttp://www.ehretgsd.com/CiroAd3.jpg

I did this one, but don't actually use it anywhere on my site.  Sort of nice for kennel ads though.  Depending on the editor's "photoshop skills", just about anything could be changed and still be believably real and unoticeable of any modifications.  But where should you draw the line?  I've made great pictures from crappy ones, simply by cropping them (defining the borders) so that they're more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.  Is that bad?  What about "auto tuning" the color balance, or correcting over/underexposure?  Marketing psychology is not just applied in visuals, either.  Written words themselves have a greater impact in my opinion.  Should we start dictating what people can write?  What about descriptions that deceptively "play up" a strength or quality, while carefully omitting a less than desired weakness?

 If your perception can see through any misrepresentation, then you should be congratulated for your lack of imagination.  "Presentation" can be key to capturing the imagination, and drive us toward achieving our dreams.  If you're immune to the "hype" that we find in all things around us, in everything we do, then you're pragmatic enough to know that; if a dog can get to the fence in 3.5 seconds, it still can't beat a bullet.  I agree, it's a tool that can be potentially used for deception, and that the color or structure of a dog should not be altered.  But like I said, descriptive words can be more deceiving than visuals.