Some post processing is almost always needed; white balance, dodging and burning etc. Mostly I work on backgrounds; smooth 'em, clean 'em, replace 'em, sometimes create 'em.
"Photoshopping" does not, de-facto, made the photos less representative of the subject. The human eye and the camera see things very differently, so a little reconciliation is good. I don't think the ladies who only use noisy, under exposed, dingy photos really look like that in real life.
The very best way to ask the question is: Are the photos a good representation?
In fact, I'm up waaay past my bedtime playing with some shots I did of the lovely ExoticBabyGirl this evening. I don't think she'll mind my sharing this one. I enlarged the rug and created an alternate background by combining several other photos and textures to make it a little more interesting, just for fun.
This one I worked up as a possible Avatar, the "reflection" is pure Photoshop. The soft appearance was done the old fashioned way, with a Softar filter on the lens.
I don't think either of these is a mis-representation of this lovely young sprite. But the shots on her showcase till now are, because you simply can't see her very well in them.
Just my opinion, of course.
One(Make that Two) last example(s), then I'm off to bed.
I love black and white, and use photoshop rather than in-camera to create them. Obviously, a monochromatic image is not real life, but, I think sometimes the color distracts from the form and details. I had to dodge her quiet a bit because of my poor lighting technique, in the RAW image her face was not even visible.
I forgot to mention cropping! This is probably the number one way photoshop can really help an image. This is a tight crop from a full length nude (not that the rest needed any help), I just loved the expression on her face in this one. Some noise reduction is usually necessary at such tight crops.
Night, night!
Photoshopping
My Bio Page - Texas - Dallas
