Kudos to Brad Bachelder

[David Noble]

For the very reason that I am not a professional photographer, or own any professional cameras or lighting, I often have to use brightness or contrast adjustments to get the pictures to look as good as the gun actually does! I try to use natural lighting (sunlight) as much as possible. This often involves shooting in the shade and making angle and position changes to get the best exposure without glare, reflections etc.
The use of a narrow depth of field or a complimentary solid color background will draw the eye to the subject matter and allow it to be the focal point of the photograph. That is exactly what you want when trying to photo a firearm for its own beauty.
I will agree that photos that have been photoshopped to improve tones or colors that are not true to the original, or to remove imperfections in the subject itself are less than desirable and should never be used to promote a firearm for sale. That is just false representation!

[Kensal Rise]

Originally Posted by David Noble

... photos that have been photoshopped to improve tones or colors that are not true to the original, or to remove imperfections in the subject itself are less than desirable and should never be used...!

I hate to point this out, but under that aegis, the photographic representation of virtually all products sold through advertising since WWII would be "less than desirable."

Especially automobiles. I know this from professional experience.

[David Noble]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

I hate to point this out, but under that aegis, the photographic representation of virtually all products sold through advertising since WWII would be "less than desirable."

Especially automobiles. I know this from professional experience.

Yes, no doubt. Especially on new products where the item you purchase is not necessarily the item shown. My statement was referring to those who sell used firearms on auction sites and the forums here etc. That I would call undesirable.