# To post-edit or not...



## crazy_dragonlady (Mar 4, 2008)

... that is the question. 

I want to start off by apologizing if this issue has been touched on here before as I haven't done a thorough search on this topic.

Do you prefer photos that have been edited with some program like photoshop or Gimp? Or do you prefer to leave them "natural" as in no post-editing?

Personally, I tend to leave my photos as they were taken.  The only type of post-editing I do is alter the exposure/levels as I am still learning what settings look good.

The reason I am asking this is due to my comments about a photo being shot down.  The photo, in my opinion, had been retouched too much. So much so that the subject of the photo, which happens to be a portrait of a child, had pretty much no texture at all to the skin on certain areas of the face.  Now whether this had to do completely with the editing that was done on the computer or not is not known as I haven't seen the original.  To me, when I saw the photo, it looked "over-edited".  

Basically what I'm trying to say I guess is that editing to fix errors made by the photographer (ie: over or under exposure, white balance errors etc.) are ok but going much past that to "enhance" the original photo defeats the purpose of taking the photo.  IMHO that isn't being a photographer, that's being a graphic artist.

I thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion on here.  Let's try to keep it clean! 

ttfn
CDL.


----------



## CanadianMe (Mar 5, 2008)

I was using Aperture 1.5 for my P&S and now for my DSLR. I try to keep any post shooting work to a minimum. I try and stay within what I used to do with film in a Dark Room. I am getting Aperture 2.0 Thursday. I am on a Mac and found I liked it more than Adobe Lightroom and I added a CS3 worflow action pack to Aperture. I have PS CS3 and find it overkill for the amount of post shooting work I do to my photos. Apple and Adobe offer a 30 trial of each software. I do graphic arts now and not why I got into photography, post shooting corrections is about all I do, anything more than that I really want to avoid with my photography. That is my desires, I think those who use PS are just different in photography philosophy than me, no better or worse, just have a different desire in the field.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 5, 2008)

Well, for once, these discussions have been going on in this manner ever since TPF has been around (I think - I myself wasn't around during its first 10 months of existence), which means you ought to find lots and lots of previous discussions on the matter in the "archives". 

Then I personally enjoy the fact that I now no longer need to rely on the presettings of a printing machine, which do the basic "one-setting-for-all" work to the prints of my photos, but that I now have the chance to actively take part in the creation of the photo I wanted to take. And sometimes I feel that despite my best effords to have my camera take it just _like that_, my camera can't. Because of its own technicalities, and their lackings. That is when I embrace Photoshop and say to myself, wow, how good I can work on the levels, saturation at times, the last tad of sharpness etc. in Photoshop. 

This is not to say that everyone who owns a post processing software of any kind may now easily become sloppy in his camera work since Photoshop is going to "fix it all" (miraculously even) later. You need to have taken a good photo to begin with to END with an "enhanced" photo, or one that is even more "yours" (like you envisioned it beforehand) than the straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) photo could ever be.

As to portrait photos, on here I have seen members who are very much in favour of heavily processed photos, with I-don't-know-what-all done to the skin to exclude any kind of blemishes, and they argue that that is what the customer wants. A glamour photo, one that makes them EXTRA beautiful, more than they naturally are. But that is one standpoint a photographer can take. It is not mine. But I guess that in a world where more and more portrait photographers take the "glamour kind" of photos, you begin to EXPECT your own to be that "glamourous", too, maybe? Which creates a wider and wider market for that kind of heavily post processed portrait photography, so more and more photographers swing towards applying all sorts of layers to their clients' portraits until the skin gets almost "lost" underneath them. 

But I still cherish the CHANCE to become creative with my photos AFTER I have clicked the button, now that I photograph digitally (for most of the time) and have this chance to further work on them.


----------



## Battou (Mar 5, 2008)

I my self prefer not to remove any thing that was there on scene regardless of the outcome, I have played with some levels adjustment and some color compensation but for the most part I will leve them as they came out of the camera. Take this one for example, Great view in my oppinion however the wire destroyes it completely, despite two comments directed at the wire in and of it self I did not and will not remove it Via cloning. I could and thought about croping it out but the results where even less appealing to me thus posted as you see it. By refusing to do this I am forcing my self to make certain these kind of things don't  appear during composition if I expect or want an image to do well.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## craig (Mar 5, 2008)

I keep my post processing basic. Although I am not above spending time on an image with further processing. For me post processing is an integral part of photography. 

Of course there is no correct answer here. Photographers have been manipulating their art since day one. Only thing that matters (as always) is that you are happy with the final print.

Love & Bass


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 5, 2008)

_Note: This post kind of evolved into something longer on its own, not sure if all of it is within the scope of the thread anymore... i only started with writing a brief reply, honest! Enjoy reading (and argueing)!_



So what's wrong with being a graphic artist if you produce good pictures?

Likewise, if you produce bad pictures it doesn't matter how or why.


As for editing being solely for "fixing errors" - well, it doesn't work like that. All images are edited. A completely unedited digital photo looks something like this:

0100110110101110110010101011001010100101001

only _a lot_ longer.

More accurately, your camera shoots RAW data. You can either edit that yourself and tweak the photo however you like, or tell the camera to edit it itself and just show you a jpeg. It is still editing, and you can get different results according to how you edit your pictures in your camera, just like you would edit in Photoshop.

Drawing a distinction between various types of "editing" would make it all more clear:

- Creative editing. You might call it graphic art, design, drawing, special effects, whatever. You are free to do anything you like - chances are that some guy on the internet won't like it. If you are getting paid by someone, make sure that _they _like it.

- Good ole' photo processing. This is where you play around with stuff like contrast, brightness, saturation etc until the photo looks right to you. Your digital camera already processes your photos so that they look right to _it_, but you can reach a compromise or even take complete control. Film photographers risk(ed) their lives and marriages playing around with hazardous chemicals in order to achieve the ideal processing.

- Bad editing. This is an amateur cranking up contrast and saturation on a portrait to 400% and thinking that he has a nice National Geographic cover. Note that if it looks good to you and you are happy, then it could be considered "creative editing", but National Geographic still won't publish it.

_
Taste is subjective.
_
Makes sense, doesn't it? Some people prefer a more natural look, some like highly processed pictures. They like different kind of processing. There is no such thing as "not editing". There is only editing done by you, and editing done by some random guy in a japanese factory - on your pictures, guessing what you had in mind when taking them. Either one can give great results, but the more involved you get, the more you will want to do the editing yourself, usually.

Once you realise how it works, you will see how many creative options you really have at your disposal. You can use them or not, depending on your needs, but you should really have a complete idea of the process of taking a photo once you've been at it for a while. 

Even if your objective is to most accurately reproduce what you see with your own eyes, it will take some editing to accomplish, because the camera is not your eyes. Actually it will take a lot of editing. And color managing. And chosing the right paper. Omg this is so frustrating - better switch to B&W for a combined artistic/journalism effect. Mm... maybe a levels adjustment here... some curves editing there...

Or, if you need to capture a haunting, otherworldly mood that would be really hard to reproduce, you can always use your camera phone:







Did that work?


----------



## crazy_dragonlady (Mar 5, 2008)

My take on the whole subject is just that, my take.  Every one that has posted a reply to this thread so far has stated their opinion and that's what I wanted... opinions.  Everyone has one, it's just come to the point in this messed up world that not everyone can freely express their _true_ opinion on certain subjects without being shot down, flamed, yelled at, banned.. etc. 

I like being able to state my opinion and I like the fact that you, or anyone else, is free to disagree with my opinion!  That's important to me as I'm sure it is to pretty much everyone here.

Thanks to everyone who has so far replied.  Please keep this topic going as I'd like to hear more opinions from other members here! :mrgreen:

ttfn
CDL.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 5, 2008)

I expect a certain level of quality and "look" to my pics.  If I can get it without PPing, I will, but I doubt it.  One thing that is happening is, the amount of time I spend PPing on each pick has dropped significantly vs when I started out.  I could spend 2 hours on a pic... now its 20min if I am REALLY being picky, but more often than not, its under 1 min per picture.

PPing I think will always be there for the simple reason that I shoot RAW and use auto WB, then touch up in PP... that and a little added sharpness never hurts since I do not sharpen in-camera (and RAWs are not sharpened on my D200 anyways, no matter what the settings).


----------



## Arch (Mar 5, 2008)

oh boy, another one of these threads....:roll:



crazy_dragonlady said:


> Now whether this had to do completely with the editing that was done on the computer or not is not known as I haven't seen the original. To me, when I saw the photo, it looked "over-edited".
> 
> Basically what I'm trying to say I guess is that editing to fix errors made by the photographer (ie: over or under exposure, white balance errors etc.) are ok but going much past that to "enhance" the original photo defeats the purpose of taking the photo. IMHO that isn't being a photographer, that's being a graphic artist.



There is a fundamental problem with these few sentances. Its fine to say this if its merely a personal preferance i.e. I prefer ALL photography to be simple and with a minimal amount of editing.... but the common mistake it to blame the computer.
I know its hard to accept for some people but editing heavily OR minipulating an image is NOT always because someone used too much photoshop... anyone with experience of the darkroom will tell you this as there are hundreds of darkroom techniques that can create different effects.

Photoshop is merly a digital darkroom.... and should not be seen as something horribly unnatural.

I do agree that now and then you see a horribly over worked image... thats a given... 

'....are ok but going much past that to "enhance" the original photo defeats the purpose of taking the photo'

This sentance in particular, again is cool to have your own opinion about, no prob, but really makes no sense to me. The purpose of me taking a photo is to display what i want the view to see regardless of how much editing is done.

The best advice i would give anyone who is serious about modern photography is to learn as much about photoshop as possible... then if your vision for an image is to use levels and curves, then fine, however if you need to create a mood, you also have that capability.


----------



## craig (Mar 5, 2008)

When I was a film photographer I shot 'chrome film most of the time. I still shoot 4x5 for some clients. Beautiful stuff for sure and I kind of miss it. Talk about getting it right in the camera...

Love & Bass


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 5, 2008)

I am a "get it right in the camera" kind of person.

I have opened PhotoShop exactly twice in 2008, and I have done about 2000 pictures so far this year.

I do just a couple of things in post, and that's about it... and I do them in Capture NX and iPhoto of all things.

I do remove dust with iPhoto in blue skies. I also crop (sometimes I just can't get close enough with my telephotos to get exactly the cropping I need, or I just can't get the camera turned in time during an action scene or when an animal is moving).

Occasionally, a photo needs a bit of sharpening or I get bad purple fringing (the one main flaw with my beloved el-cheapo Tamron 70-300), and I fix that too.

If I totally blow an exposure or miss the focus point, I just trash the photo.

I also resize for the web with one or the other of those programs, so you all can see my work.

I shoot JPEG with my D300 cranked up VIVID, because I LIKE vivid.

The only two times I opened Photoshop (I have the original CS), were to work on somebody else's pictures.

I find that I can do EVERYTHING I need to do except simple healing in Capture NX, so that is what I use. I love that program.

Bottom line, my goal is to get it right in camera or simply miss the shot. Missed shots encourage me to get it right in camera.

I've been shooting for 30 years, so there is no excuse for me when I don't other than I am simply not good enough... and if I fail often, it tells me what I have to work on to get better.


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 5, 2008)

I must say i don't quite understand the "get it right in the camera" thing as related to processing. What else should you be aiming to? Getting it wrong in the camera? You (try to) get it right in the camera anyway, that's a given. If you decide to process for a different look & feel or not, it is unrelated to getting as good shot.


----------



## Ajay (Mar 5, 2008)

Copying this from the photo pet peeves post, since it goes a long with this topic.


I am working towards getting my photos right in camera and I can't wait until I finally do! In the meantime though, I am not going to scrap an image that fell short in camera when I can improve it in photoshop. I feel it is my job as a photographer to make the best version possible of any shot I take and if I didn't achieve that in camera I'll try my best to do it afterwards. Doesn't mean that I won't go out and just continue taking bad shots - I will try even harder next time and slowly my pp time is getting shorter and shorter. (not that I don't delete hundreds of shots all the time - a lot of times there are mistakes that just can't be fixed of course - a hard lesson sometimes). I think the reason I do like postprocessing is because I enjoy shooting mainly portraits and people want to see themselves looking beautiful. Sometimes that takes very little work and sometimes more extensive work, but I am not going to tell the senior girl I photographed that her skin looks mottled and thats just the way its going to look - if I can make her happier by retouching her skin then I definitely will. Some people seem to think that is selling out, but I don't know, thats just not the way I feel about it. We all know that there is a huge learning curve in photography (with lostprophet sitting prettily at the top :greenpbl and we all do what we can to slowly climb it. 

I'm glad that there are so many different viewpoints and opinions on how to do things and I am equally happy to be sharing them with people that don't think that theirs is the only way.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 5, 2008)

Get it right in the camera means you don't HAVE to do any post processing. Composition, exposure, white balance, focus, lighting are all done correctly in the first place, so if you get it right to start with in the camera, the only thing you SHOULD need to do in post processing is to resize it to post it on the web.

This is the "old school" way of doing it.

It is the way it was done with film, where (unless you did all of your own printing) you pretty well got what you shot... and the vast majority of people who were photographers didn't do their own color printing since it is both tricky and the equipment was VERY expensive.

By getting it right, in camera, you get the most pure representation of the scene that you can. While this may not matter much to an "art" photographer, I guarantee you it is critical to a photojournalist who is there to RECORD the scene.

When I take a picture of an animal, I am trying to shoot what that animal actually looks like... and what the environment around it looks like.

Hey, I've got nothing against people who want to do stuff like process for a different look and feel, for artistic sake. I have no problem with people who enjoy playing with photoshop... I say have a blast, knock yourself out.

It is just not the school of photography that interests me. I want to take pictures, in my camera, that say what I want them to say... as if my digital sensor were actually film.

Yes, I am old school but on the other hand I am old... I've been doing this for 35 years, and that is the way I learned how when I went to photojournalism school, when I was a photographer for a daily newspaper, and when I shot weddings.

I have never claimed that my way is the right way for anybody else. But it is the right way for me.

Obviously, nobody aims to "get it wrong" in camera... but many, many photographers who I know and who have talked to have the attitude of "I will just shoot it and fix it in post" instead of actually stopping and paying attention to getting the technical details right in the first place. The "I will just shoot it 'however' and fix it in post" attitude is... well... sloppy in my opinion, and it leads to a complacency about learning the actual fundamentals of good photography technique. 

Your milage may vary.


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 5, 2008)

Getting it right in the camera is the _only option_. It is the whole idea of photography. Unless it is practically impossible, the whole point is to get it right. More on that in a bit.


With this out of the way:

Film photographers still used different kinds of film to get different results. Using a film that gives more saturated color is the same with moving the saturation slider. 

Doesn't film developing involve all kinds of adjustments that you can do? How is it different to doing the same adjustments with software and why is it better of someone else does them for you without your input? When shooting negative you don't even have the option to not edit your shots, they need to be developed.

With digital, if you shoot RAW you need to edit the photos yourself, if you shoot JPEG the camera will edit your photos just like a photo lab would, and only show you the end result, like it or not.

By this logic, one should not try different exposures either: taking the same picture with different levels of light is editing your shot and selecting the version you like best. You should only have one try.

"I will just shoot it and fix it in post" - err... lol. Unless it is a photographic emergency or really hard conditions, that sounds tottaly stupid. Why edit a bad picture when you can edit a good picture? 

Getting it right has nothing to do with post processing. You first get it right, then post process or leave it as your camera processed it, whatever suits you better. There is no single correct look, unless you are trying to meet very specific demands, even in scientific photography (they still have analog sliders and knobs). It is personal taste.


Some people may see me as having an arguing attitude, so let me clarify that i don't support a particular camp. I don't see any camps at all from my point of view. There are only different levels of editing and the choice of doing it yourself or using an automated editing process, that's all there is to it. Trying to draw hard lines and call names is just semantics. Me, i wouldn't like to arbitrarily restrict myself for no apparent reason, but if it helps your creativity do it; it is all a very personal matter.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 5, 2008)

Those who actually think that others that use Photoshop in their creation of photos are naturally sloppier in their shooting the photo are unfair in their thinking towards those who do use post processing software (need not be Photoshop, though that's the one that works best - to my mind). When you have decided that post processing software helps you gaining more control over the production of a photo, it does NOT mean you can start out by taking a BAD photo, thinking you'll "make it better later". You cannot make a bad photo any better later. But you can gain control over making a GOOD photo more "your photo". To my mind, that is all there is!

Unless you can call a colour darkroom your own, few of us film users (I am both, film and digital) have to rely on handing in the film and getting back our prints, and we gave control over the making of the prints into the hand of the big machine in the lab that is set by default to a "one version for all" way of developing. The middle way. Always. But (!) that is a kind of post processing, too. Even the creation of the negatives already is a kind of post processing. Only is that totally out of my control. A machine takes the decisions (or not, but someone has ONCE set that machine!). 

When my uncle and dad still made their own black and white prints in their darkroom, I watched them straighten tilted horizons by putting the paper no quite at a 90-degree angle onto the plate, I watched them crop their negative by moving the enlarger further away from the paper, I watched them dodge or burn, I watched them choose their paper according to what they wanted to achieve, I watched them decide on the time the print would stay in the developer and and and. 

Why rob us of the chance to be equally creative today, in our computer darkrooms?


----------



## abraxas (Mar 5, 2008)

As little as possible, as much as has to- Get it right.


----------



## bhop (Mar 5, 2008)

I prefer good photos.. I don't care how it gets to that point.

The great master, Ansel Adams is a good example of someone that did a lot of post processing to his photos.  I doubt he'd be as legendary if he just printed the negatives 'as-is'.


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 5, 2008)

If the final result is a beautiful shot, I believe, it's up to me to use any tools necessary to get that shot.  I wouldn't turn down anything.  For me it's that simple.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 5, 2008)

I too am one of those 35+ year photographers that learned and still practice "Get it right in the Camera".  With that said however, the one thing that I haven't noticed anyone mention about film is that it was also post processed. 

 It just happened in the darkroom.  Right in the camera still might be printed a bit lighter, or darker, colors being subdued, or brought out.   Dodging and burning in post processing to get a desired result was all done.  Not by the local Walgreens when you turned in your film. They just stuck it in the machine and picked the best average and pushed the start button.   But anyone that worked in their own darkroom did.  It was just part of photography. 

It is also one of those things I miss in this digital age, right up until I think about all the busy work there was just to get to the stage of developing or printing my own stuff.  Not to mention chemical storage.


----------



## gmarquez (Mar 5, 2008)

If I remember right, there was this guy, Ansel Adams, who used to do a lot of analog post-processing ("dodging" and "burning")...and I really like a lot of his B&W work.  I don't think I'd consider him to be "just a graphic artist".

Personally, I run the whole gamut.  Some images look fine out of the camera.  Some need post-processing to approach what my eye saw when I took the picture ("eyes" have a higher dynamic range than the electronic sensors in cameras).  And some I process a bit more because they look extra nice/cool/whatever partially *because* they are over dramatic.

However, you still have to hit composition, lighting, etc. right, or no matter how much or how little processing you do, your photos will not be what you want.

Just my 2 cents.  With inflation what it is, that ain't much.


----------



## LaFoto (Mar 5, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> ...the one thing that I haven't noticed anyone mention about film is that it was also post processed.


 
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:


----------



## bhop (Mar 5, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> :cry: :cry: :cry:
> Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:



same here.. *sigh*


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 6, 2008)

Hey, i said it first! No one reading my posts either .


----------



## Battou (Mar 6, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> :cry: :cry: :cry:
> Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:



Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.

You ever watch some one add text to an image in a dark room or a border? 

Oh yeah...It's easy

Getting the translucent text commonly used in modern watermarking takes a little more finesse but it too can be done.

That is part of why there are some things I'll do and some I won't. If I don't know of a way to do it in a dark room or can not imeadiatly think of one I won't do it digitally.....that is just me and my 2 cents though.


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 6, 2008)

Battou said:


> Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.



Right on. I wish there was an easy way to deal with this... then again is how most people function when they don't know something, they make convenient assumptions to fill in the gaps.


----------



## Battou (Mar 6, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Right on. I wish there was an easy way to deal with this... then again is how most people function when they don't know something, they make convenient assumptions to fill in the gaps.



Sadly this is another aspect of photography that one really needs to experiance to learn and get a true feel for, even if it is just watching some one else do it.


----------



## Miaow (Mar 6, 2008)

I will sometimes add some contrast to my pics if I think they need it - usually i leave them alone - but I do shoot in colour and then convert to B&W via software just incase i want to keep the colour one - I do tend to have the shot in mind as a B&W but I take it in colour.



Battou said:


> You ever watch some one add text to an image in a dark room or a border?
> 
> Oh yeah...It's easy



I remember as a kid watching my brother in his dark room ( a converted outhouse) and he showed me how you could write on pics while the print was being developed.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 6, 2008)

I have yet to come across a photo that wouldn't be improved by minor touchups. So many people these days say they should keep it pure like the film users. Personally I let them believe their fantasy arguments as I've given up on this almost religious debate.

To put my 2c into this thread, messing with the colour, and contrast is nothing more than selecting which film to use and how long to develop for, cloning could be done on film too, putting a dark gradient map on an image is nothing more than using an GradND filter, and cropping is nothing more then... well cropping.

The "pure like film" analogy is clearly taken only by people who have never shot a roll of film before.


----------



## rmh159 (Mar 6, 2008)

Battou said:


> Part of that biols down to shere ignorance to put it bluntly....There are so many things that can be done in a dark room that so many think is Photoshop exclusive it's not even funny, people just don't know just what things can be done. They think film and picture an image that is no matter what straight out of the camera.


 
I couldn't agree more but the argument goes both ways.  I met a photographer a bit ago who only shoots film and he said he did so because "Digital isn't art since everything can be edited in a computer.".  To your point, those same edits can be done in a darkroom which really voids the entire argument.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 6, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> :cry: :cry: :cry:
> Oh, I knew no one is ever reading any of my posts... :cry: :cry: :cry:



Ok, Ok, OK!!!!  It was a really long, tiring, busy, C%$@& day at work, came home to a sick wife an I probably (defined as definaltely) skimmed some of the responses.  My bad and I will admit when I am wrong, I was wrong, some of you mentioned Film. (bless you died in the wool ole' time shutter bugs)  ale::blackeye:


----------



## Socrates (Mar 6, 2008)

sabbath999 said:


> It is the way it was done with film, where (unless you did all of your own printing) you pretty well got what you shot... and the vast majority of people who were photographers didn't do their own color printing since it is both tricky and the equipment was VERY expensive.



I couldn't even do my own developing - I used Kodachrome pretty much exclusively.

(Obviously, I didn't do portraits.)


----------



## skieur (Mar 6, 2008)

Too many people are speaking from the point of view of having a very limited photographic eye for detail, colour and lighting.  The general consensus from top digital photographers is that all digital photos require postprocessing.  That is beyond question.  All photos require colour correction and all photos need work to improve the tonal range.

Too many photographers accept learning from newbies in photographic technique but forget that postprocessing needs to be learned as well.  What some consider overprocessed is really a beginner in postprocessing with a too heavy approach to adjustments.  It is not postprocessing that is the problem but rather the less than expert approach to doing it.

An inexperience viewer is also sometimes part of the problem.  Bright or vibrant colours does not necessarily mean over-saturation in Photoshop.  Pick the right time of the day, perhaps a filter and the right weather in a humid climate and you are likely going to see bright greens, vivid reds, dark blues etc. with no postprocessing whatsoever.

A lot of posted photos I view, would not be accepted in a professional market  because of the lack of basic postprocessing and that includes a very large percentage of portraits.  It is a good thing that some are sold to members of the general public who do not have a eye for quality work.  If that were not the case, there would be a lot more "starving artists" out on the street.

skieur


----------

