2.png)
Random image thread
category: residue [glöplog]
Quote:
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.
I'm not talking about how nice she looks. I'm talking about the ability of a photo to accurately convey reality. Four dimensions sliced and projected down to two, all sensory elements removed except for light, and light only poorly captured. If you were actually looking at her rather than a photo of her, the imperfections wouldn't stand out nearly as much, so in that respect, reducing the imperfections makes the picture more realistic. That's whether or not the camera's distorted interpretation makes her look "nice enough". And despite the fact that some people overdo it, of course. It's not like retouching is an exact science, or unambiguous, or easy in any way.
i don't mind all photoshop jobs even the most fantasy ones as long as it meant to be art and no to lure consumers or worse citizens (many dictatorships knew how to play with official photos way before digital retouching...)
and Doom there's a gap between retouching the colors/lights and brushing away all the nice lil skin imperfections.
and Doom there's a gap between retouching the colors/lights and brushing away all the nice lil skin imperfections.
You just don't want to understand, do you ;)
The skin imperfections and the bad colours/lights stand out because of the limitations of photography. Removing them can help in trying to overcome those limitations, resulting (in some cases and if it's done well) in a more true-to-life picture. Not just an idealised fantasy version of reality but something that's closer to reality.
Unless your definition of real is "whatever the camera captures", but that's such a limited view. Certainly not befitting an artist. ;)
The skin imperfections and the bad colours/lights stand out because of the limitations of photography. Removing them can help in trying to overcome those limitations, resulting (in some cases and if it's done well) in a more true-to-life picture. Not just an idealised fantasy version of reality but something that's closer to reality.
Unless your definition of real is "whatever the camera captures", but that's such a limited view. Certainly not befitting an artist. ;)
show me a retouched picture where the only goal was to show reality.. then I will show you a flying goat.
"I'm a makeup artist and I get clients who expect me to make them look perfect.
To get results anywhere near what Photoshop can do, you'd have to cake on so much makeup that your neck wouldn't be able to support the weight of your face.
Those photos aren't real and but are a real problem.
Find your own beauty & style, enhance it and flaunt it."
To get results anywhere near what Photoshop can do, you'd have to cake on so much makeup that your neck wouldn't be able to support the weight of your face.
Those photos aren't real and but are a real problem.
Find your own beauty & style, enhance it and flaunt it."
Flying goat, please. ;)
And here's a film I saw recently that does a very good job of conveying the sense of smell through imagery:
Though arguably they didn't Photoshop every single frame, you can rest assured there was a lot of image processing involved. ;)
Though arguably they didn't Photoshop every single frame, you can rest assured there was a lot of image processing involved. ;)
you are in the refectory. you can grab a bucket for vomiting. To the East you can see a black-haired girl with little tits (little little)
What?
Eh?
