What is Digg?78 Comments
- xerus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+156I think you mean "Most of the pictures on that page are clearly manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop® Photo Manipulation Software (US PATENT 42-25215). ®."
Oh internet. - quomen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+124I used digg™ [©2007] social bookmarking services to promote this story.
- stealth45, on 10/12/2007, -7/+64Please don't kill the joke yet.
- binaryspiral, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42They look Gimped.
- statix, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47ok i swear its been like 2 days since this Adobe Photoshop news debut but its already been done to death.
It was funny the first time. please move along. - Crazychipmunk, on 10/12/2007, -17/+49No, those images were enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.
That is all. - NickMilne, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Step one: Find a picture of Beirut
Step two: ...
Step three: Bring disgrace to Reuters and lose your job - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26I thought everything Gimp made resembled a penguin.
Wait, you mean the USERS do that? - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Dude, people are gonna laugh at you if you keep calling penguins "gnus."
- chibigoku, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@NickMilne
Nice, Looks like no one remembers that incident. I do however and oh boy did that not go over well. For those who dont......
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only
no blogspam, just reminiscing...... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"They look Gimped."
Nah... that would mean they were filled with really ugly gradients and the most horrendous text effects and rendering ever produced.
/me runs - Mardala, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Photoshop smotoshp... I think "stripslashes()" would be more appropriate.
- pizzatsf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9http://digg.com/tech_news/Adobe_The_Photoshop_trademark_must_never_be_used_as_a_verb
- kewlito, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13In Soviet Russia, photos shop you
Ok, hit me as hard as you can. - BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Mine came out looking like radioactive dog poop, anyone know why? Did I not apply the filter enough times?
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b397/blackcow99/poop.jpg - Oldschoolhack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've just decided "gimping" sounds so much better than "photshopping".
"Wow, that girls rack is definetly gimped."
It just flows better.... - chrisxkelley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Note to the php developer:
stripslashes() is your friend. - Barnolde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This would've been dugg a lot more had it been posted on 4/20.
- fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9These are the internets, the tubes, jokes don't die.
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5stripslahes($article) for crying out loud.
- Daniel15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Don't you mean: This \"rocks\"?
:P - Artzealot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Filters are for n00bs... Hand paint realistic smoke in photoshop and i'll be impressed.
- macbookpromat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Cause it's boring.
I understand where you're coming from, but people just want the quick and easy so no tutorial about bit-depth for you. - Qwiggalo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Doesn't look like you did. Use the shortcuts though to make it go faster. Ctrl+F to do the filter and Shift+Ctrl+F to do the whatever it was called thing.
- Errik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5STOP DIGGING EFFECTS ARTICLES, THIS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER PHOTOSHOP USER
Learning about levels and bit-depth will make you a better photoshop user, why doesnt anyone post about THAT - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I concur. This tutorial is obviously leaving something out.
- svenjick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The tutorial "looks" good, but when you try it out, the result is no where near as "good". Watch out!
- Ocelot13, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6no dude, it says in how to make smoke in photoshop, not "how to make smoke in the back of an impala" or any other place
- avest, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6stripslashes()
- svenjick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Take the tutorial picture (2nd one), apply the "wave" and "fade" a few times, and it becomes obvious that it's not the same picture that served as a basis for the tutorial (or there is more to it than said)...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Ok, hit me as hard as you can."
In the ear? - toosas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4oh, but we are not joking. it'll be like that from now on
- madmaxptz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, this "rocks".
- jamesjarvis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whats with the copyrighted photoshop? lol
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2All your base are belong to us.
- Hiros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thanx so much for this :)
- Julz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2omg im just waiting for someone to make a Yakov Smirnoff joke about photoshop
- BlackCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well what are you waiting for? Hand make some smoke for us.
- moiremusic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, mine looked similar to yours also. This seems like a poor tutorial, though Lazrius' image below doesn't look bad.
( http://i18.tinypic.com/2mwt1xv.jpg) - morguth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It also makes me wonder if people tried this out before digging it, or just dugg it for the pretty smoke.
- deaper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's the beauty of Digg bud. You want to see a tutorial about bit-depth and levels on the front page? Write up a halfway decent tutorial about it that actually makes sense to a novice Photoshop user, and submit it to digg. I'll be happy to digg it up.
- Sampson80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1it's funny, people want to get credit for showing a technique, but then they leave out critical steps. The settings this tutorial shows for the "wave filter" are the DEFAULT settings. So I'm assuming the guy didn't give out "his settings". Alot of it is dependent upon resolution too. I first tried this with a 300 dpi document and it barely did anything to the image... Whereas if you try it to a 72 dpi document, the results are more drastic... However, 72 dpi isn't going to print well, so you need to play with the settings if you want the smoke to look right. I turned up the # of generators and got better results...
- jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man, that's looks aweful!
- EvilFerret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Pretty easy to follow tutorial for newbies, but the smoke is pretty lousy... I suppose it *kind of* looks like smoke :|
- Qwiggalo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Mine came out more like a Picasso painting then smoke. It looks awesome though, but not smokey, the edges didn't blur, am I suppose to assume I do that or did anyone else get it to work right?
http://www.qwiggalo.com/images/smoke_questionmark.png - relayerdesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It works with a little finesse. I illustrate here: http://www.relayerdesign.com/rd_blog/
- loneraven, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Of course it doesn't work, The smoke should be on a different layer, not mixed with the black background.
The tutorial isn't all that great, but seriously, read it first. - m00dy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sexy
- mdvashro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1for step three I cant click on "wave". tell me why.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Do they not know how to unescape " or ' ...?
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
){kind=link}
