Everyone knows the professional photos are Photoshopped. False advertising really irks me

I was looking at a Candid the other I think her name was Mariah she looked gorgeous.

I don't know about everyone else, but while I enjoy the professional photos, I am much more enraptured by the candid photos that the ladies post. Opinions?

I'm talking about the technical merits of the image itself more so than the contents of that same image.

And I'm not a shallow guy... I would rather see a average looking 6 or 7 whose photos are unedited, than a Photoshopped 10 whose trying to deceive me.

There's nothing worse than a gent thinking he's about to see a 10 only to have rosie o donnell standing behind the door lol.

With all the obviously doctored pro shots floating around I definitely prefer the candids.

I know a lot of folks who touch up their candid shots - just because they were taken on the fly or with a phone doesn't mean they aren't being touched up.  Several of the shots we see in the daily photo threads ARE edited.  That software can be used by anyone and doesn't require a professional shot to start with.

You know everything Ginger including football... Thanks for clueing me in.

There are folks on this board who swear he takes weight off.  Well, at the request of the provider he will.   He's just doing what his clients are requesting.  I didn't lose one single pound in his editing of my photos.   Also, I was given all the shots from my shoot without HIS moniker on it.  I allowed him to put that on the ones he color corrected/touched AND I could edit out that signature very easily using Picmonkey.com if I needed too.  It would take less than 3 minutes.  To say ALL his pics are over corrected or to assume his pics don't accurately represent the actual person just isn't true.  

I never intended to say nor imply anything derogatory about him. Lots of pros and websites use watermarks on pics. I was trying not to single him out one way or the other by using his full name, hence Whatshisface.  
The posts I've read seem very positive about him. To me His pics demonstrate a good eye, great composition, and the body postures look very relaxed... which was what I was trying to convey as a plus to using a pro photographer.  But just having his name on the pic doesn't make it automatically better to me.

Indirect clients?  No.  I don't buy it.  THEY aren't paying for his services.

We're definitely going to have to agree to disagree.  I believe providers should be accountable for the ads they themselves post.  I know there's sites who post ads for us (without our permission or knowledge) using old and random pics and I'm not talking about that.  

-- Modified on 12/2/2013 11:43:55 PM

The man can make Hogzilla look like the Geico piggy.

Aldo isn't advertising to men.  I doubt he gives a rat's ass if us hobbyist respect him or not.  I envy him, that is for sure.

Become expect the unexpected in my book. I stay from providers with Aldo's magic touch. The real irony is most of the providers I have seen are gorgeous on their own and doesn't need Aldo's magic touch at all.

He is out of control with his editing. Most men in this hobby for a while knows what is real and what is not. We also know women in Cosmopolitan doesn't look like their cover in real life.

Give it up. She already said we agree to disagree. Nothing more is needed

Doesn't meet what you saw then, people with any semblance of "balls" makes a quick exit.. I completely stopped using one agency because of photo shopped to hell and back photos.  

I agree that a professional brings an eye and equipment that an amateur can't necessarily match but I like how the candids bring out the "real" woman and gives me a better impression of what I'm going to be experiencing in a session.

-- Modified on 12/3/2013 7:18:25 PM

but of the better known brunettes in Atlanta does an excellent job doing her own .

I agree wholeheartedly. While I've never had a shoot with Antonio, I have met some of the gals who do post his pics. I'm amazed that some girls are thinned out a good 25 lbs, but then that's typically that gals mo with advertising. I also know Erica and she's a size 4.... her pics depict what she actually looks like. Ginormous boobs and all!
To say it's the photographers responsibility to not deceive the hobbiests seems ridiculous. Girls specify what they want with the photographer. Almost any photographer in town will photoshop pics to hell if requested by his client (the one paying, the provider) to do so. That's a no brainer for a photographer. Their job is doing what gets them payed. I've never heard of a hobbiest paying a photographer for a providers pics.  
On the same note, if I were a hobbiest showing up for an appt and a girl was 15+ lbs heavier than her pics and not proportionate like her pics, I'd be pissed and leave. It's the provider's responsibility to not falsely advertise herself.  

Most of Aldo's work that I have seen, is too damn natural. I saw dimples, stretch marks, cottage cheese, etc. The very least one should do is use the self tanner feature...guys realize no one has perfect skin, so that's not overly doing it IMO.

Clic, Santillo, Scott Church, Meeshee, the list goes on of photographers who HEAVILY photoshop, and their rep has not skipped a beat. I find it comical how anyone can pick Aldo among that group and say he does the most editing...it's simply not true. Go take a look at Clic in Miami...they shave 20 years off a face...so much so that women who don't want to be recognized can still show a full face in their photos, and no one knows it's them. That's editing. What Aldo does, is minor, and again, he is being paid. Who is going to go to a photographer that says, "Ok, pay me 1000 bucks, but if you look like shit, I can't edit your photos." As if.

Reading this thread has been interesting and shows a lack of understanding on some part about digital photography. I agree with many that have said that some photographers will edit an image to change body dimensions. Every single image of a model you see in a magazine has has this done. That goes along with our perception of "perfect" body image.. Not that I agree because there is so much more to a person than there body shape.. But back to digital photography.. I think Julia's images are well done. I don't know her, but looking at the photos, I would image that they are true to her. But every digital image needs to be edited. That means setting the Color Balance, highlights and shadows, contrast,  saturation, etc. I have not mentioned trimming or padding here because that goes beyond basic image editing.. Basic image editing just gets the image to look like real life and not flat, the way it will come out of a camera.. Even cameras do "image" editing. If you shoot jpgs instead of RAW, the camera is interpreting the image and giving you it's interpretation. I would rather give you my interpretation than the computer in a camera.. And Photoshop doesn't make a photographer an artist... Learn to craft light on your subject, seeing form and texture and color, crafting proportions of subject to background, these make an artist with a camera..  Ansel Adams never got to use Photoshop, but he was definitely an artist.. Bottom line is that every photograph is edited, but whether there is a change in form or not is a different matter.. And I agree with Julia that the viewers are secondary clients... Oh, Julia, your images are beautiful, no matter how you get them!

Plus, try contacting any of the ladies he just shot in Chicago or his loyal following in Minnesota....no one here thinks he over edits, it's the opposite he BARELY needs to edit because he know how to use lighting.  
Why don't you just stop passing judgement and hearsay around when you have no physical proof yourself?