Random image thread
category: residue [glöplog]
Worth a listen.
(home cinema)
Quote:
Bad bad bad photoshopping on that picture. And bad photography to begin with. Better:
better? her skin looks like plastic..
sweet girlie. but i think first photo is more natural, sexy and attractive. screw glamour.
speed: i guess i'm not part of the magazine target ;)
nice :)
i think the shopped picture has a nicer lighting (looks more like Channel Luminoisity or how its called xD)
crosbow: o'rly? i know what you bought last summer!
i agree with sq, 1st is much better
i agree with sq, 1st is much better
Quote:
WTF?! I'm pretty sure that magazine didn't survive, because if you are member of the probable target audience (admins), you'll have access to high-speed internet, and therefore access to as much porn as you like -> you don't need that kind of magazine
actually it's an ad of the dummy magazine! http://www.dummy-magazin.de
hmm... and if you can afford one of those real-dolls, you can definitely afford a wife or at least a high class prostitute
Wow, you're all much too dismissive of retouching. What's so realistic about a photo anyway? Remember, a camera discards depth/stereo information, anything outside the view frustrum, and all of the "atmosphere" of a scene that isn't visual (like smell, temperature or moisture). It also only registers a limited range of colours/light intensities.
On the other hand cameras add details to photos that you wouldn't normally be conscious of when looking at the real thing. People very rarely stand perfectly still in unchanging light conditions to let you walk up real close and have a good look at their complexion, and that's why this image...
... isn't actually true to what your perception of that scene would be if you were there in the room with her. To say that a photo looks "real" if it looks exactly as the camera recorded it is a very narrow (and circular?) way of thinking. I like to think that retouching can do a lot to compensate for the difference between a photo and real life, which, depending on whether or not your view of realism is based on perception of reality (as it should be, but some people don't get it), can make a retouched photo more realistic than an unmodified on. As long as it's done well. Yellow bikini tequila girl is a bad example, obviously.
But whatever. Here's another thing you can do with Photoshop:
On the other hand cameras add details to photos that you wouldn't normally be conscious of when looking at the real thing. People very rarely stand perfectly still in unchanging light conditions to let you walk up real close and have a good look at their complexion, and that's why this image...
... isn't actually true to what your perception of that scene would be if you were there in the room with her. To say that a photo looks "real" if it looks exactly as the camera recorded it is a very narrow (and circular?) way of thinking. I like to think that retouching can do a lot to compensate for the difference between a photo and real life, which, depending on whether or not your view of realism is based on perception of reality (as it should be, but some people don't get it), can make a retouched photo more realistic than an unmodified on. As long as it's done well. Yellow bikini tequila girl is a bad example, obviously.
But whatever. Here's another thing you can do with Photoshop:
BattleDroid, not accepting the reality is what I call narrow minded. when you dont look at the retouched version, actually you dont even think there's something that should be retouched on that girl. she is nice enough without giving him that unnatural fake plastic skin you see everywhere these days.