You don't wanna miss this video!

10/16/2006 09:52:17 PM · #27

I wish I had those makeup/hair artists.

Btw, I find it funny that the techniques used in that video would be illegal to do in both the basic and advance editing challenges. All the more reason why we should have a third rule set that actually mirrors techniques done in the real world. It's fine and dandy to limit beginners so that they learn the basics but what happens when you move past that and want to learn the craft as it is actually practiced in many of the fields of photography?

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/16/2006 10:21:54 PM · #28

I see this every day.

If only you can see what actors look like before the "vanities" get their hands on them.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/16/2006 10:28:55 PM · #29

Originally posted by yanko:

I am tempted to agree with you to some extent. However, once you start letting people dink around more heavily in photoshop, you start hitting a LOT of gray area. At the same, it is always the bread and butter techniques that make good photography good photography. The only thing that the photoshopper did in that sequence that would be illegal was the lengthening of the neck and the augmentation of the facial contour around the eyes--which, I actually think makes the model less attractive, but that is personal. At any rate, the vast majority of what went into that shot was, in fact, DPC legal.

Trumpeteer4

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

10/16/2006 11:02:01 PM · #30

Amazing!

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

10/16/2006 11:12:01 PM · #31

Reminds me a lot of the last episode of Ugly Betty, where they were going to make a "fat" actress (translation: normal-sized) vaguely anorexic through editing for a fashion spread. The series is my latest guilty pleasure TV show, and precisely for this reason.

fotomann_forever

10/16/2006 11:15:18 PM · #32

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

That would be a fun challenge. Before and After from average person to supermodel shots.

Better lift that major element rule... LOL

10/16/2006 11:18:28 PM · #33

What is sad is all the girls (and some boys...) at my middle school who try and live up to the adds. They work so stinkin hard to be that person, who is nothing more than a cartoon drawing of the perfect person. I am going to show this to some of my classes. I think they could use that.

fotomann_forever

10/16/2006 11:31:35 PM · #34

Hell, I did damn near that much in my Free study image. I didn't stretch or move anything ,but as you can tell the face has been cleaned up a lot.

10/16/2006 11:41:28 PM · #35

I did check that out. You have to do that sort of thing however to keep up with the joneses. There is this same sort of thing in Audio production. Un-Mastered music is sonically supirior to Mastered music. The problem is that people won't by un-mastered stuff because it is quieter than the mastered versions. So now we compress all of the fidelity out of albums so they can be super loud. It sort of ruins the true sound of the insterments and voices. If you don't do it however you will never sell an album. If you master the heck out of it, then you will have a hit. It is a crazy world.

You know what really blows my mind is this:
//features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3680

Message edited by author 2006-10-17 00:18:25.

10/17/2006 12:47:51 AM · #36

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:
I wish I had those makeup/hair artists.

Btw, I find it funny that the techniques used in that video would be illegal to do in both the basic and advance editing challenges. All the more reason why we should have a third rule set that actually mirrors techniques done in the real world. It's fine and dandy to limit beginners so that they learn the basics but what happens when you move past that and want to learn the craft as it is actually practiced in many of the fields of photography?

The only thing that the photoshopper did in that sequence that would be illegal was the lengthening of the neck and the augmentation of the facial contour around the eyes--which, I actually think makes the model less attractive, but that is personal. At any rate, the vast majority of what went into that shot was, in fact, DPC legal.

Only? Enlarged the eyes and lengthen the neck alone made her look like a completely different person. There were multiple major elements added to that photo.

Message edited by author 2006-10-17 00:48:57.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

10/17/2006 12:49:57 AM · #37

I am waiting for the holographic necklace that you can wear and it changes your looks by projecting an image onto your face. That would be sweet.

Rebecca

Nikon D80

10/17/2006 12:56:36 AM · #38

Originally posted by boomtap:

I am waiting for the holographic necklace that you can wear and it changes your looks by projecting an image onto your face. That would be sweet.

You mean like Malcolm McDowell's holographic head in Tank Girl? :D

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/17/2006 12:58:05 AM · #39

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:
I wish I had those makeup/hair artists.

Btw, I find it funny that the techniques used in that video would be illegal to do in both the basic and advance editing challenges. All the more reason why we should have a third rule set that actually mirrors techniques done in the real world. It's fine and dandy to limit beginners so that they learn the basics but what happens when you move past that and want to learn the craft as it is actually practiced in many of the fields of photography?

The only thing that the photoshopper did in that sequence that would be illegal was the lengthening of the neck and the augmentation of the facial contour around the eyes--which, I actually think makes the model less attractive, but that is personal. At any rate, the vast majority of what went into that shot was, in fact, DPC legal.

Only? Enlarged the eyes and lengthen the neck alone made her look like a completely different person. There were multiple major elements added to that photo.

What are you calling an "added major element" that I did not mention?

10/17/2006 01:08:43 AM · #40

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:
I wish I had those makeup/hair artists.

Btw, I find it funny that the techniques used in that video would be illegal to do in both the basic and advance editing challenges. All the more reason why we should have a third rule set that actually mirrors techniques done in the real world. It's fine and dandy to limit beginners so that they learn the basics but what happens when you move past that and want to learn the craft as it is actually practiced in many of the fields of photography?

The only thing that the photoshopper did in that sequence that would be illegal was the lengthening of the neck and the augmentation of the facial contour around the eyes--which, I actually think makes the model less attractive, but that is personal. At any rate, the vast majority of what went into that shot was, in fact, DPC legal.

Only? Enlarged the eyes and lengthen the neck alone made her look like a completely different person. There were multiple major elements added to that photo.

What are you calling an "added major element" that I did not mention?

You used the phrase "The only thing that the photoshopper did..." and I'm saying what the photoshopper did (i.e. enlarge the eyes, lengthen the neck, etc) are major elements added to the photo. Do you think those are not major elements?

fotomann_forever

10/17/2006 01:16:18 AM · #41

Originally posted by yanko:

I was told by a couple of SC that using the liquify tool to make a model skinnier would possibly result in a "major element" DQ ... so, I'm sure enlarging eyes and necks would be.

Message edited by author 2006-10-17 01:17:34.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/17/2006 01:42:18 AM · #42

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by yanko:

You used the phrase "The only thing that the photoshopper did..." and I'm saying what the photoshopper did (i.e. enlarge the eyes, lengthen the neck, etc) are major elements added to the photo. Do you think those are not major elements?

I was told by a couple of SC that using the liquify tool to make a model skinnier would possibly result in a "major element" DQ ... so, I'm sure enlarging eyes and necks would be.

That's what I'm saying. The photoshopper did a lot to this photo that would have caused it to be DQed.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

10/17/2006 01:47:22 AM · #43

Originally posted by yanko:

That's what I'm saying. The photoshopper did a lot to this photo that would have caused it to be DQed.

Which seems to indicate that commercial photography techniques are not realistically represented in any challenges.

Awesome video!

rebs138

Olympus FE-230

10/17/2006 01:55:09 AM · #44

Originally posted by slickchik:

great video...man I wish i could just sit there and have people do my hair and makeup every morning like that.

and have it take less than a minute, too!

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/17/2006 04:58:40 AM · #45

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

Originally posted by yanko:
I wish I had those makeup/hair artists.

Btw, I find it funny that the techniques used in that video would be illegal to do in both the basic and advance editing challenges. All the more reason why we should have a third rule set that actually mirrors techniques done in the real world. It's fine and dandy to limit beginners so that they learn the basics but what happens when you move past that and want to learn the craft as it is actually practiced in many of the fields of photography?

The only thing that the photoshopper did in that sequence that would be illegal was the lengthening of the neck and the augmentation of the facial contour around the eyes--which, I actually think makes the model less attractive, but that is personal. At any rate, the vast majority of what went into that shot was, in fact, DPC legal.

Only? Enlarged the eyes and lengthen the neck alone made her look like a completely different person. There were multiple major elements added to that photo.

What are you calling an "added major element" that I did not mention?

You used the phrase "The only thing that the photoshopper did..." and I'm saying what the photoshopper did (i.e. enlarge the eyes, lengthen the neck, etc) are major elements added to the photo. Do you think those are not major elements?

Ah, I see. I think there was a communication error. I think the head lift, so to speak, is indeed a violation of the major elements clause. However, I don't know how I feel about the alteration to the eyes in terms of the major elements clause. Does changing the contour of the face around the eyes count as "moving a major element?" I think that the wording of the rule is not clear enough on that issue. I would be surprised to see its usage get past the judges, but I think it is arguable.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/17/2006 05:05:25 AM · #46

Originally posted by NovaTiger:

...but I think it is arguable.

In DPC-Land, this applies to every rule, guideline, policy, etc. LOL. :)

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro Super II for Canon

10/17/2006 05:11:27 AM · #47

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by NovaTiger:
...but I think it is arguable.

In DPC-Land, this applies to every rule, guideline, policy, etc. LOL. :)

Heh heh. Fooled me. I thought it was a photography site and it turns out it is just a secret lawyer training program. The blue ribbon is in the mail.