What is Digg?99 Comments
- jaffacake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow it ruins most of these women. Most of them look far better before hand. Loads of their anatomy is turned into a smooth blob of nothing.
Why the hell is he smoothing out the bones in the elbow, the collar bone, muscles in abdomen, legs and arms?
I donno about you but I find all the creases, textures, lumps and bumps etc far more beautiful than these stretched plastic bags he keeps making.
These people should only do little things like spots and messy hair. Not turn women into these ugly alien shapes. - duranracing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html
found something similar - wolfpupmaui, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They are so much more attractive before the photoshop tho...
- anakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Interesting how many armpits disappear.
- bill.clark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I still think the photographer for Playboy has it better ;)
- J-roc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow. I'll think twice next time I think I want to marry a supermodel.
- ryouko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://glennferon.com/ use that
http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio05.html ( she looked like hell before) - 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tada is right, I somewhat suspect he tweaked the originals a bit as well. Although the models might not be happy with some douche geek adding all that grey lard to their stomache.
- nyconx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I used to do this work for US weekly. It was rediculous. We would get a photo of "stars out on the town" then proceed to whiten teeth, whiten eye balls, reduce wrinkles (on face and in the clothing), lengthen legs, increase the bust, increase or decrease (depending on the star) thier rear, shave hips down and make clothing look really tight fitting. It looks nothing like the original when done.
- pegisys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/index.html
now this one is just scary - ncaa76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Standard Rates:
$125.00 per hour. (discount for volume jobs, such as models portfolios or more than four images)
Wow! I am in the wrong business - CanuckMakem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its sad really...
- inactive, on 01/01/2009, -0/+1Conan is always lookin' good. The point here was to edit out the goddamned Sears Tower. The ***** Sears Tower is fugly as *****. The best they could do is put some Danny DeVito midget in front of it.
- steamynachos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We've reached a point where even supermodels aren't pretty enough to hold their own. We're probably going to have computer generated models next.
- sigUVa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is a cool digg. Let's not forget, however, that even before the photoshopping, they are still better looking than 99.9999999% of the population. The exception being the link in ryouko's comment...what the hell is that all about?
- TheChance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's hilarious. Especially the one Halle Berry picture where she had no top on, turns out she had one on and it was visable in the original pioture. Check photo 15 for some horrific photoshopping.
- gyromind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Berry was hot yes i said it my friends. Pass tenths." I think you mean 'Past tense'.
- sarasweet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great find, I was just saying how this month's issue of FHM looked more like it had a rendered video game character on the cover than a photo of a human. Every single magazine out there does this to their photos, and personally I think it'd be a kickass job to have.
- aprocter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/links/How_real_is_real__Photo_touch-ups.
I submitted something like this to digg back in 1.0. - neomisnthrpe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'll tell ya, you have to have something worth looking at to start with, and these models are something to look at even before the manipulation of light and line.
- mario_24789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so nobody is really that hot i guess, damn that sucks
- leomyhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1is it just me, or do most of these girls look better in their natural state? What a sham of an industry!
- mrbinary, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A few months ago I gave a speech on the ethics of photo retouching to a classroom of people who had never used Photoshop, many having never even seen such technology. As a retoucher (of portraiture - blemishes, stray hair, teeth whitening, and so on), I expected most of them to have at least some awareness of the manipulations done to the images that they so frequently try to model themselves after. "It's so prevalent, how could they NOT know about this?" I thought.
I was shocked by the response that some of the examples received. Most of the audience was women, half of them in their late teens, the other half middle-aged. They were completely floored that this sort of thing was happening. They were appalled that it was happening to such a high degree. As they left, I heard some of them talking about how the realization that retouching was occuring was, in itself, a great self-esteem boost.
I think that introducing education about "beauty retouching" would go further toward helping teenage girls with self-esteem than anything else currently being taught. It's such a huge part of our culture, and is something that far too many people know nothing about. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really don't think the "before" photos were photoshopped. The original photographer did a pretty bad job with the lighting in some of the photos, but that's the extent of it.
- Kevbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yick. The pictures look better before this guy touched them up. Joan Collins needs this man's help, not these models. The majority of his work is REALLY overdone. I'm surprised he makes a living doing this kind of work. The pictures look like what you see uploaded to Usenet groups where some fool has washed away all the delicious detail in a girl's face and thrown his own signature on it. Dude. Tone it down by half.
- mugget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Then you're missing the point of someone (or someTHING as you so chauvinistically put it) being photographed. If they aren't naturally good-looking by anyone's standards and they're technologically manipulated to appear more appealing, then they aren't real anymore. By looking at these stylized pictures, we're giving into the stereotypes, this "ideal" body that we all either need to get on ourselves, or screw someone who has it.
That's not sad?"
sorry, i think you misread my comment. i said that "if i'm buyin a magazine, i want to see good looking things in it, weather it be a design mag, FHM..." (yes, i've never called a nice design a 'person'. i was also referring to other good looking 'things' such as you would find in motorcycle mags etc) products, just about any photo in a magazine is touched-up, every pic in the mag has to look great to sell the mag. but these were *extreme* examples. but in the end i guess it comes down to what that .Mac page said... "what the Art Director wants, the Art Director gets".
maybe i'm just used to seeing stuff like this, because of my design background. but i really am surprised at all the comments saying that this is making them feel sick. i suppose i just take it for granted that i know what goes on behind the scenes - i guess the large majority of people really do think that the celebrities look like they do in magazines when they wake up every morning? but really - who could honestly believe that someone looks like that? that would have seemed pretty bloody obvious to me... - FRiC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The site specifically says "The Art of Retouching" and all of the images are created as art and not as photography.
- aznboi04k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nicely done!
- CocoDaPuf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This doesn't get a digg from me, much the same way that horror flicks don't get $9 from me. Totally scarred me for life.
- JazzyTech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hasn't anyone noticed that some of the "before" pics have been retouched as well? I think this site is more a lesson in marketing, and less retouching :)
- deadpixel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0these are WAY over-done... if i did a clients photos like this i'd get fired.
- FlatLine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wow,i will never look at Vivica Fox the same...3 outta 5 Hot karls!
- Destrado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Check out the asses, sometimes they even makes their behinds bigger. Next time you GF asks about her ass, mention that these people charge 125.00/hour to enlarge supermodel ass on film.
- EricBoyers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's amazing what we see in magazines and advertising and such is so "enhanced".
- moisie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it's understood that photos like this are heavily airbrushed but some of the examples on that site are very poor. Some of them, to me, don't look like photos at all.
- pasteler0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I work with this! If some one needs this kind of work! Just tell me! :)
- red.shoes.jeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that ***** is disgusting.
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, that's pretty disgusting
- male73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This should be sent to all teenage girls that have been gobbling up too much fashion magazines and not enough food for their own good. I think sad is fairly accurate considering that this has ill-effects on impressionable minds.
- weezerrock86, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think this stuff is purposly over done for a shock factor so we all go WOW they really do a ton to models. I have a feeling this site is purposly over doing some of the work they do. And are maybe even enhancing the "ugly" photos to look worse.
- sneakyindian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0did anyone notice that they moved Berry's foot in one of em? she is laying forward with her feet up and one foot is pointed to the left of the screen while the other is pointed up, after the photoshopping they had both feet up... thats crazy
- bvaughn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html
The non Coral version. Alot faster. - modal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now I know why they starve themselves... cause the photoshop artist adds about 10 pounds to their ass.
- NekstBestThing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That makes me vomit in my mouth a bit.
- Nimrod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They looked better before. Check out http://www.eydis.com/retouching.html to see quality Photoshop retouching.
- dukeblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/index.html
"now this one is just scary"
looks like night before, morning after shots... maybe TOO MANY shots! - pox05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i wonder if any of of the "originals" have been manipulated to look worse than they really are, to "enhance" the look of the PSing...
- Kylinn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That's what I need! Photo restoration and manipulation!!
- Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What's really sad is that they almost all look fine in the original photos. All it would take is some colorization and brightness/contrast tweaking and it would've been perfect. But the promotion of pseudo-perfection is apparantly too demanding. THAT is what's sad; none of that is necessary at all, and is proven only to hurt people's mindsets.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0$125.00 an hour or not, I don't think I could sit there doing this type of stuff all day...
-
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is