Shortly after I got my dSLR and PS CS2, I learned to *never* believe any image is reality... unless I see them straight from the camera.
There was a photo exposition at the Arclight theater in LA. At first glance, it looked like Hollywood glamour shots from the 1920s-1940s. All of them were just normal women from present day who had been transformed through makeup and clothing (and probably some PS).
Cool video. It's very interesting to see that kind of transformation in action.
That is pretty interesting - there are a few examples of this out there (and In fact there is at least one professional retoucher on dgrin going by the feature requests )
I quite liked the clip - it's important that the methods get out there so that the rest of the population can get one with their lives. Having said that I am not really questioning the ethics of this to be honest - In my "doing evil" category it's something that should be handled with more care but it's kinda down my list of human evils that needs to be taken care of.
On a lighter note it means there is hope for me yet (as long as we don't meet in person) .. MAAAKEUP!.
Anyone game enough to post a photo and being supermodel'ed ?
I'm glad that Dove is putting these comercials out there. I have a 3 month old daughter, I only hope that I raise her to believe that beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder--not in the eye of society.
I find it inspirational where Yuri says "Must say that a lot of those whom I photographed doesn’t really look attractive ‘in life’… and they say that they are not photogenic at all… and they are sure they are not… Some of them has some problems with skin, face skin (Who of us does not?).
But… I think I can’t explain this to you, but I ‘see’ the future photo. You may call it ‘Freezing look’ of mine…
Still image is just another thing…"
It reminds me that a good photographer can make almost anything beautiful without major PP.I hope one day to become a good photographer
I think we all know that the images of beauty we see in print, on TV and in films are not "really real."
Yet, because they're idealised versions of human beauty, we still believe them on some level.
The current edition of Photoshop User magazine has a short tutotial on just one kind of beauty photoshopping - how to make your model taller and slimmer. The neck extension seen in the video is similar.
Andy this is a really interesting subject and there's so much that could be said. I will applaud Dove's attempt to help young girls raise their self-esteem. I wonder if it's a little "too little and too late" as our population is so extremely beauty-obssessed. Sex and beauty sells so I doubt very much advertising will ever bow down to help alleviate the problem of what we are doing to young impressionable girls. Every flaw can be "fixed". (How many 20-30 year olds do you know that don't have implants? ) What is amazing to me after seeing this video and also viewing the thread that Dave mentions, is how far the manipulations are carried now that the softwares have become so very, very sophisticated and so very, very good! I (someone who uses CS) was stunned to see the images in Dave's thread. On one hand, I think it is amazing what software can do, on the other it is disappointing to me that people want to go way beyond a normal portaiture touch-up. It's interesting to me (this week in particular) as I am just venturing into doing some portraits of my niece this weekend and I am wondering how far does one go with touch-up? I was experimenting with different lenses last weekend to use, and didn't have a model so I took some self-portraits. Of course I adjusted the curves and softened (and then finally removed!) some lines. But it was hard to know "where" to stop! I did realize one thing, we can look at ourselves in the mirror everyday, but there is nothing quite like an un-touched photo to jolt you into reality!!! Botox here I come!
Shortly after I got my dSLR and PS CS2, I learned to *never* believe any image is reality... unless I see them straight from the camera.
There was a photo exposition at the Arclight theater in LA. At first glance, it looked like Hollywood glamour shots from the 1920s-1940s. All of them were just normal women from present day who had been transformed through makeup and clothing (and probably some PS).
Cool video. It's very interesting to see that kind of transformation in action.
Hey Chris I saw that exhibit too!
Next week my CK underwear billboard goes up in Times Square.
Make up!
Clothes!
Haircuts!
Gel Bras!
Breast Implants!
Nose Job!
Botox!
Etc Etc
Photoshopping photos is something done to enhance beauty as are all of the above things.
Any one who doesnt like it is to an extent for me living in the past, PS is just the latest in 100's of years of people wanting to appear attractive.
Oh and why is someone using PS to make a model look better any different to a Make upartist and good lighting to make a model look better?
Photography for me is about making an image and no matter what tools are used then that is fine, its all about the end result.
What is important and what WILL change is the common persons understanding that what they see isnt always real.
With all those things Stu just mentioned, who'd honestly belive anything we see nowadays (at least fashion related:-) is real...
What we do with PS is just an icing on the cake...:D
With all those things Stu just mentioned, who'd honestly belive anything we see nowadays (at least fashion related:-) is real...
What we do with PS is just an icing on the cake...:D
Exactly!
It should be fraud just the other week I took this beautiful 36DD blond home and when I woke up I was in bed with a 36a plain brunette!
Joking!
She was a Redhead...
Trapped in my bedroom taking pictures...did i say bedroom? i meant studio!
I could not help it, sorry...
Just wanted to give it a try... under 15 minutes...
Fresh shot of a friend taken at lunch.
I din NOT intend to make it perfect, with the hair and such.
I could've (I have other shots:-) but I'm lazy:-)
Just a bit of PS on a regular snapshot...
folks keep referring to photoshop here, but is that the program they're using? It really looks nothing like PS once you actually look into the video. The toolbar has different tools, the windows that pop up are unfamiliar, what program are they actually using there?
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
alright, after some extensive and exhausing googling, I've come to the conclusion there is no program. They've digitally redone the photoshop interface with their own, generic interface to avoid any adobe trademark litigation. what a letdown... ... I was so excited about a new program too!
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
alright, after some extensive and exhausing googling, I've come to the conclusion there is no program. They've digitally redone the photoshop interface with their own, generic interface to avoid any adobe trademark litigation. what a letdown... ... I was so excited about a new program too!
I'm really starting to think that they had a "finished" layer and an "unfinished" layer on top and then made some ad hoc selections to make it appear that they were doing these transformations when they were really just masking/fading and using cut-scenes to interpolate the workflow. There's a point when they make a couple oval selections on the shoulder/neck area to lower curve of the neckline... You just can't make an oval selection "tilted" like that without first creating an oval, rotating it and then removing/hiding the layer in photoshop.
And the rest of the stuff just looks near impossible without some really indepth transformations using the transform tool, the Liquify tools and then healing over the skin where the transformations took place. Unless i'm missing something, there's really no way to just "select" and "adjust" parts of the body like that without causing imperfections in the outline of the body and skin itself... sry, this has just been bothering me since i've seen the vid...
SM Page: cdhames.smugmug.com
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
This example isn't really all that severe, and just brings the image back to what you would have seen without the harsh lighting. The lighting they used brings out every pore - no matter how good your makeup artist - and since it was lit from above of COURSE you will get shadows under the browbone. They basically cleaned up her pores, lightened the image (which is about a stop underexposed) cloned out her bags - they could have used a decent model - and dodged out her eye sockets.
The Dove commercial is stupid because they started with a girl who shouldn't be on a billboard to begin with. I recently shot a GORGEOUS Brazillian model who needed ZERO retouching. No neck lengthening, no waist thinning, no eye reshaping, no bag removal. Models are models for a reason, because they are "models." I really disagree with the title topic of "the reality" of models and modeling because this is not realistic WHAT SO EVER. Of course retouching is done. It's done in family portraits, and senior portraits, too. Why the hell have these tools at our disposal if you're not going to use them?!
Check out this photo. Full resolution, zero "retouching" and only used curves.
Comments
There was a photo exposition at the Arclight theater in LA. At first glance, it looked like Hollywood glamour shots from the 1920s-1940s. All of them were just normal women from present day who had been transformed through makeup and clothing (and probably some PS).
Cool video. It's very interesting to see that kind of transformation in action.
http://photosbyfred.smugmug.com/
Here is a small tutorial along those lines.
I quite liked the clip - it's important that the methods get out there so that the rest of the population can get one with their lives. Having said that I am not really questioning the ethics of this to be honest - In my "doing evil" category it's something that should be handled with more care but it's kinda down my list of human evils that needs to be taken care of.
On a lighter note it means there is hope for me yet (as long as we don't meet in person) .. MAAAKEUP!.
Anyone game enough to post a photo and being supermodel'ed ?
While browsing, I came upon this thread: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=23685
I find it inspirational where Yuri says "Must say that a lot of those whom I photographed doesn’t really look attractive ‘in life’… and they say that they are not photogenic at all… and they are sure they are not… Some of them has some problems with skin, face skin (Who of us does not?).
But… I think I can’t explain this to you, but I ‘see’ the future photo. You may call it ‘Freezing look’ of mine…
Still image is just another thing…"
It reminds me that a good photographer can make almost anything beautiful without major PP.I hope one day to become a good photographer
Just my $.02.
Yet, because they're idealised versions of human beauty, we still believe them on some level.
The current edition of Photoshop User magazine has a short tutotial on just one kind of beauty photoshopping - how to make your model taller and slimmer. The neck extension seen in the video is similar.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Thanks to Andy (http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=44791) I stumbled upon this site: http://www.fluideffect.com. Check out the 'portfolio' and the before and after.
cheers,
Dave
www.dlphotography.ca
www.redbubble.com/people/dlibrach
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Andy this is a really interesting subject and there's so much that could be said. I will applaud Dove's attempt to help young girls raise their self-esteem. I wonder if it's a little "too little and too late" as our population is so extremely beauty-obssessed. Sex and beauty sells so I doubt very much advertising will ever bow down to help alleviate the problem of what we are doing to young impressionable girls. Every flaw can be "fixed". (How many 20-30 year olds do you know that don't have implants? ) What is amazing to me after seeing this video and also viewing the thread that Dave mentions, is how far the manipulations are carried now that the softwares have become so very, very sophisticated and so very, very good! I (someone who uses CS) was stunned to see the images in Dave's thread. On one hand, I think it is amazing what software can do, on the other it is disappointing to me that people want to go way beyond a normal portaiture touch-up. It's interesting to me (this week in particular) as I am just venturing into doing some portraits of my niece this weekend and I am wondering how far does one go with touch-up? I was experimenting with different lenses last weekend to use, and didn't have a model so I took some self-portraits. Of course I adjusted the curves and softened (and then finally removed!) some lines. But it was hard to know "where" to stop! I did realize one thing, we can look at ourselves in the mirror everyday, but there is nothing quite like an un-touched photo to jolt you into reality!!! Botox here I come!
Clothes!
Haircuts!
Gel Bras!
Breast Implants!
Nose Job!
Botox!
Etc Etc
Photoshopping photos is something done to enhance beauty as are all of the above things.
Any one who doesnt like it is to an extent for me living in the past, PS is just the latest in 100's of years of people wanting to appear attractive.
Oh and why is someone using PS to make a model look better any different to a Make upartist and good lighting to make a model look better?
Photography for me is about making an image and no matter what tools are used then that is fine, its all about the end result.
What is important and what WILL change is the common persons understanding that what they see isnt always real.
My www. place is www.belperphoto.co.uk
My smugmug galleries at http://stuarthill.smugmug.com
Hey Chris I saw that exhibit too!
Next week my CK underwear billboard goes up in Times Square.
Wait, why am I laughing?
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Very nice presentation!
With all those things Stu just mentioned, who'd honestly belive anything we see nowadays (at least fashion related:-) is real...
What we do with PS is just an icing on the cake...:D
It should be fraud
Joking!
She was a Redhead...
My www. place is www.belperphoto.co.uk
My smugmug galleries at http://stuarthill.smugmug.com
Just wanted to give it a try... under 15 minutes...
Fresh shot of a friend taken at lunch.
I din NOT intend to make it perfect, with the hair and such.
I could've (I have other shots:-) but I'm lazy:-)
Just a bit of PS on a regular snapshot...
Before:
After:
Hope you guys like it!
Does she like it?
My www. place is www.belperphoto.co.uk
My smugmug galleries at http://stuarthill.smugmug.com
I have no idea, it's Sunday here, I will see her tomorrow...:D
She liked the "retouched" version alot
Click on the magazine model.
It will take you to a before and after of 12 changes made to the model.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
One thing for certain, PS does a better job than most plastic surgeons IMO!!!
Funny how they gave her an entirely new belly-button!
Both links are great!
People have been enhancing reality for as long as we've been able to draw lines in the sand.
Malte
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
Heheh nice bit of detective work
And the rest of the stuff just looks near impossible without some really indepth transformations using the transform tool, the Liquify tools and then healing over the skin where the transformations took place. Unless i'm missing something, there's really no way to just "select" and "adjust" parts of the body like that without causing imperfections in the outline of the body and skin itself... sry, this has just been bothering me since i've seen the vid...
Referral: ( wXtCbmTTvmJSE )
The Dove commercial is stupid because they started with a girl who shouldn't be on a billboard to begin with. I recently shot a GORGEOUS Brazillian model who needed ZERO retouching. No neck lengthening, no waist thinning, no eye reshaping, no bag removal. Models are models for a reason, because they are "models." I really disagree with the title topic of "the reality" of models and modeling because this is not realistic WHAT SO EVER. Of course retouching is done. It's done in family portraits, and senior portraits, too. Why the hell have these tools at our disposal if you're not going to use them?!
Check out this photo. Full resolution, zero "retouching" and only used curves.
Owen