Computer Enhanced Photos

It all depends on the photos and how much enhancing was done. I think it's fine to just tweak the photos to bring out their full potential. I don't like it when they are obviously "photoshopped." Also, it depends on the use of the photos. Many stock photos need to be edited to get the right look or fit for the use that they will be put to.

If one does not come to know that the photo has been enhanced using some computer programme/application, I think there is no harm in it. However, it would be better if the photographers makes a mention of it that the original photograph has been re-designed/edited.

i'm on the fence in this one. i don't mind a little alteration here or there. a bit of photoshop here to brighten the color and soften the hue is fine with me but to actually alter the whole picture or most of it through computer programs is a big no-no for me. it robs the picture its true beauty and essence.

I agree unless it is for movie making or something like that, the raw untouched photos are the best and show the true talent of a photographer.

actually i know people told me that term. good photographers dont post process photos. but now where are they? what are they doing? keep on attending seminars of how to enhance photos, how to manipulate etc. sometime you need to go with the flow. don't tell me Americas Top Model photographers don't edit their pictures.

Well i think you have to divide pictures into 2 classes animals ( including peaple ) and building , sunsights in the first class i think you shouldn't edit it because you don't need to touch something that is beautifull alone and the second class well somethimes these things look a little grey and if you just brighten them up and add a lil contrast to it that doesn't distract the eye from what it actually is