DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> It's all photoshop, baby!!
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 52, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/20/2005 11:24:08 AM · #26
For those who haven't read it already, this....Photoshop CS The Art of Photographing Women
is a fabulous book on using PS in portrait work. You don't need Photoshop CS to get LOTS and LOTS out of this book. Its $22.04 on Amazon.com.
07/20/2005 11:31:03 AM · #27
He's a very well known retoucher, especially in the music biz and the black community.
 07/20/2005 11:44:24 AM · #28
It's sad when it's taboo for a woman to have pores. 'Reality' is a tepid pool while fantasy is a roaring ocean.

Nelly Furtado was pretty peeved when a british mag airbrushed her top off after a photoshoot. No decency.
 07/20/2005 12:59:45 PM · #29
I thought this was one of the more drastic changes:
//www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio15.html
 07/20/2005 01:08:28 PM · #30
I guess it just goes to show that even some of the most beautiful women have their flaws too! The photos work well on the magazine covers though!
 07/20/2005 01:17:04 PM · #31
07/20/2005 01:32:06 PM · #32
Originally posted by GeneralE:

ROFLMAOWTFBBQ (which I don't fully understand what's the meaning, BTW)

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 13:33:39.
 07/20/2005 01:35:59 PM · #33
Rolling
On
Floor
Laughing
My
Arse
Off
While
Throwing
Frozen
Bent
Brown
Quarters

that was retardedd
 07/20/2005 01:43:02 PM · #34
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by rex:
//www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio02.html


I think she looked much better before, except for the nice sun-glow he gave her.


The funny thing about this one is Vida became popular partly through her exposure in Maxim (I think, coulda been FHM. My husband gets both so I get confused) :-) because of her rear assets. But if most of her shots are this exagerrated with PS then it makes you wonder. Not that her bum isn't nice before the PS work. It actually looks quite unreal in the touch-up. Suppose because it is. ;-)

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 14:51:36.
 07/20/2005 02:05:48 PM · #35
Originally posted by rex:
//www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio02.html

and OMG:

//www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio05.html


Those are the two (of the few I looked at) that I especially gaped at. The first one - he added so much to her ass - I'm surprised she didn't kill him. And did you see how her foot was moved? LOL

The second one - wow - I almost thought that they had pshopped the original the photo was so un-flattering to her.
 07/20/2005 02:14:13 PM · #36
Originally posted by GeneralE:


Very funny. I'm hearing the phrase "Photoshop" more often these days. Oh like, don't worry we can Photoshop that. Or, can you Photoshop these for me please. That comes from people who've never even seen the Photoshop interface ;)
 07/20/2005 02:50:46 PM · #37
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by rex:
//www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio02.html


I think she looked much better before, except for the nice sun-glow he gave her.


I agree she looked a lot better before.
 07/20/2005 02:54:10 PM · #38
Originally posted by militarygirl10:
wow i thik i will send him acouple of me!!! LOL


You can send the to me! hahah
And I haven't even finished- I got bored!

07/20/2005 03:17:39 PM · #39
Originally posted by carlos:
ROFLMAOWTFBBQ (which I don't fully understand what's the meaning, BTW)


Haha - Well, I'm guessing you know the ROFLMAOWTF part. I've always figured that the random acronyms added to the end are sort of poking fun at the whole thing, but I could be wrong. Maybe you weren't really asking, anyways :x
 07/20/2005 03:19:46 PM · #40
You guys need to talk to ClubJuggle about that one... and for the record, it's OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!1!11!!1!1!!ONE!!!1!
 07/20/2005 06:27:24 PM · #41
Originally posted by brianlh:
Originally posted by carlos:
ROFLMAOWTFBBQ (which I don't fully understand what's the meaning, BTW)


Haha - Well, I'm guessing you know the ROFLMAOWTF part. I've always figured that the random acronyms added to the end are sort of poking fun at the whole thing, but I could be wrong. Maybe you weren't really asking, anyways :x


I can guess that far ;) I'm in the same assumption you're, the more letters at the end the funniest!! :D
 07/21/2005 12:19:21 AM · #42
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by carlos:
Have a look at this guy's work, he specializes in retouching your portrait pics.


I met a girl last year who's one of the top retouchers in north america. To quote her "the better known a photographer is, the more retouching they do". Can't remember her name, tho..french girl..she has an awesome book out with the PPOC.


I bet I can guess why they are the better known photographers--because that stuff sells--especially to people who are making a living with their looks-you make me look oh so better, I will buy in too and sing your praises to the world--I'm shallow that way--LOL!!!!
 07/21/2005 12:46:10 AM · #43
wow so many of these celebrities he's showing must hate him
 07/21/2005 01:09:18 AM · #44
Originally posted by art-inept:
wow so many of these celebrities he's showing must hate him


I think they may hate that he is showing the before and after pics,but they probably love him. Some "ladies" would be upset if they looked like they had bigger behinds, but more and more are going thru plastic surgery to get them. If they will pay a huge sum of money to someone to carve up their bodies, risk infection and go for awhile with horrible bruises to achieve a bigger bust or behind, I'm sure they wouldn't object to some airbrushing. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
To me most of them are sort of like paintings. I've seen lots of photographers play with photoshop to make their photos surreal looking. When it's done on a women's body it may seem more offensive to some for obvious reasons. I guess I am looking at the more artistic side of it.

Message edited by author 2005-07-21 01:16:59.
 07/21/2005 01:28:24 AM · #45
To me the interesting thing is that if you only look at the "afters" and don't have a photographer's awareness and innate skepticism, they look "real". Which is how they are perceived by the public when they are published. And this, of course, has been going on long before photoshop made its appearance; the art of the airbrusher has become the art of the photoshop artist.

And it's not just done with women, of course. I saw a similar site from a retoucher who specialized in product work; his examples were automobiles, athletic shoes, clothes, backpacks and the like. The photographer provides the basic canvas, and the artist applies the "perfection". This is, at the highest level anyway (where it can be afforded) the reality of commercial photography and always has been.

When we shot for Psychology Today back in the early 70's, we had art directors, makeup people, prop people, lighting people, editors, you name it all in the studio offering input. And even with all that, the "finished" work went to the retouch artist for fine-tuning. It was more cost-effective to do the retouching in post-production than spend untold hours of extra time and film perfecting a shot in the studio, if it was even POSSIBLE to accomplish what the art director wanted in-camera.

There's basically no line drawn between the two disciplines in the commercial photography field; whatever it takes to produce what the client wants, is what is done. And the public, of course, is conditioned by what they "see" to such a degree that "reality" does not usually impress them. Movie stars, for instance, don't look anything LIKE their public images when they are glimpsed in casual surroundings (as opposed to scripted appearances).

Robt.
 07/21/2005 01:55:37 AM · #46
Sorry to say, but I've seen it for the past 20 odd years in the industry that I am in.

Typical marketing, great PS.

I agree some are plastic looking as well, but then again, I want the perfect image to tantelize me to spend more money.

Sex sells.

I've got money!
 07/21/2005 02:13:10 AM · #47
And the candid photos of the celebrities that often make them look "rough" are moneymakers because we the public have a morbid curiousity to see "the perfect" at their worse--like people who are fasinated with a wreck, you know it's not going to be good, but you have to look.
So, making them beautiful or ripping them to shreds-both ways-makes some photographer a living. And we the people judge and condemn both ways.Weird , huh?
Don't ask where I'm going with this, starting to ramble at this time of night(oops morning).(Sipping Margarita)
 07/21/2005 02:18:49 AM · #48
As per the nature of this thread, I think that it's worth mentioning this tutorial :)
 07/21/2005 02:27:37 AM · #49
imagine all the young girls with eating disorders...impossibly trying to attain that "perfect" body they see in magazines. very sad.
 07/21/2005 02:30:59 AM · #50
Originally posted by sher9204:
imagine all the young girls with eating disorders...impossibly trying to attain that "perfect" body they see in magazines. very sad.


Very much agreed, sadly it's all about supply and demand, and we live in a society where 'demand' is so easily influenced.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 06:44:54 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 06:44:54 PM EDT.