What is Digg?86 Comments
- nork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, dude, you should definitely take a picture of your girlfirend and then point out every flaw in her appearance and show her how you would fix her face and body. That will make her feel much better about herself.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I appolize for saying check this out twice. I blame ***** $15 a handle vodka for this. Just digg it and look at the pictures, they are pretty sweet. They aren't just people, but they also include buildings, landscapes, 3D movies, ect...
- KyleRayner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ive also noticed in the past year how far photo-retouching takes the retouching. Ive seen magazine covers, TV ads, and internet pics in which the girl doesnt even look real anymore.
If the advertisers want a look like that with their product, why dont they just have their marketing department create a CGI model for their ads? Thats basically what theyre doing now, they just use a human skeleton instead of a polygonal grid for the basis. And grids dont bitch. - ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes but not everyday they show the after and before...
- Edogz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Absolutely incredible. At first I was a little confused with what was going on, but then I understood the mouse over deal ;p.
What an incredible difference, these are sensationally retouched! - PecanHead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6On most of the images I agree with you. But on that facial closeup of the dark-complexioned girl - gah! It reminded me of that Seinfeld episode about "bad lighting" ugly.
http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini1.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You think that by reading a tutorial you would be able to do that? Ha.
Someone get me a tutorial for the Mona Lisa. - haruki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Very interesting. However, in each case I like the original photos much better. The retouched ones are kinda gross, yes I mean the "ultra-perfect" ones are gross. This is a great example to show people just how fake and prefab(or is that "postfab"?) mainstream advertising and entertainment "culture" truly is. That guy's work pretty much makes me feel a bit sick.
- zombieooo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Congratulations! You have just experienced "uncanny valley effect". I had the same response when looking at the people photographs.
- bloodborne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Seeing the stark difference between the touch-ups and the original models is scary! Literally, some that blonde woman almost looked like a witch compared to what guy was able to make out of her. To think that women actually think this kind of beauty is attainable..
- SoreWinner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Seriously, obviously there is a market for this or else this wouldn't be so commonplace. But if this is what society wants to see on the cover of a magazine, why don' t we just make up people with a computer and skip the live model? Cut out the middle man, save money.
And remember back in 2002 when Jamie Lee Curtis appeared in More magazine without makeup or touchup? - diggerphelps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I used to work with Greg in San Fran.
The guy is insanely talented and committed to his work.
(Or maybe he's just insane, and ought to be committed.)
He's a good guy.
I learned a lot from him.
(Like that I should be in coding instead of more "artistic" pursuits.) - Wogna, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Yeah, I'm definately showing this to my girlfriend, and then maybe I'll photoshop her too, just to prove that she can look like that
- NJank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3because CGI still looks noticibly fake. starting from a real source gives "altered-real" rather than "fake attempt to look real". Also, see the description of the Uncanny Valley ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley ) for a description of why real models will trump anything CGI can put out (especially for advertising) for quite some time.
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Anyone check this one out?:
http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini1.html
just about bloody fell off my chair when I saw the original image. far out! - gwd336, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4More examples (to further boost the self-esteem of the ladies)...
http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html
The ideals to which women (and men) aspire is being set by these sort of photos, none of which reflect reality. - kristin364, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow - these pics make me feel better about myself. I'm one of those girls who always flips through magazines and feels crappy compared to all of the models and celebrities. o_O
- supes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Now I get it... Retouching is the reason Jessica Simpson always looks like the Joker with beaver teeth.
- ComputerGuru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ok, what about the shoe? Don't tell me that one is not one nice retouched photo!! AND it doesn't look fake!
- Doobious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4To think that women actually think this kind of beauty is...beauty!
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I actually shuddered in shock from how ugly the original pictures were.
It makes me feel almost beautiful. - Merkidemis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now if that had tutorials to go along with the pics...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Shows you why America has a fascination with Barbie Doll type models. Cause every model we see in magazines are touched up to look plastic.
Makes me wonder how models looked before photoshop. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3to the maaaax!
- alittlemelty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3DUGG only for use of the phrase "to the max"
It's all right cuz I'm saved by the bell. - robusteza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1some of those are neat but i'm not entirely sure why he decided to give the blonde a flat head and leave the big, visible silver filling in her tooth.
- Jasoco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't digg stories that use both the phrases "To the MAX!" and the word "EXTREME". Lay off the booze, seriously.
- thirteen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is old news. ..not to mention the other people out there that retouch....If this is the most awesome you aren't looking hard enough. Everything you see that is published has been highly retouched....a true mark of awesome retouching is the fact that you don't notice it. The buildings on his site are just overdone and old....there hasn't been new work on there for a while. Look at PDN's website or PhotoPro.....couple of good folks to look at not to mention newer stuff.
- dreadlock7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1welcome back to the 80's!
Yesterday we were talking about old wornout catch phrases. The best one was from the late 80's:
Awesome....Awesome to the Max!!! - timalmond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Before your other half sits down to read a magazine selling whatever moisturising/anti-wrinkle/anti-ageing cream, show her this, and how utterly unobtainable such "beauty" is.
Also, when you see actresses walking down red carpets to premieres, it's often a stretched image that makes them look taller and thinner. - jakeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i wouldn't call this "retouching". retouching means removing red-eye, fixing color and contrast/brightness/saturation/etc. saying this stuff (which is pretty cool, i'm not knocking it) is retouching is saying you need a bit of a trim on your hair, and getting a blue mohawk and 3 body piercings...
it isn't retouching, it's manipulation. retouching is a bit more subtle than combining multiple images, etc. - OropheR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I prefered the original... (am talking about the women pix)
- sparty1969, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Two Words: BEER GOGGLES: a slang term for a phenomenon in which one's consumption of alcohol makes physically unattractive people appear beautiful.
- bigteebo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My favorite retouching is scanning in an old album cover at 300 dpi, and painstakingly reconstructing it from semi-distorted scans(I can only scan part of the album cover at a time) and clone brushing EVERY single blemish off of it. I spent 7+ hours on a Josie Cotton album cover that wasn't in the world's greatest shape.
- Fraun, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1nothing special.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1one of the scary parts is how easy this kind of stuff is to do with the settings in photoshop... i worked for a while as a photographer at a college newspaper, and some of the filters in CS especially make this pretty easy to learn to do... Of course, for a newspaper you're not supposed to retouch content, as it's that makes it not true to reality, but that doesn't mean that it's hard to figure out how to do this kind of retouching on a non news photo..
- noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The shoe (trainer) photo is very well done. I'd have never known it was retouched if I hadn't seen the original.
That's a good use of the technique IMHO. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4We all have women in our lives that think the hollywood "famous" types have perfect skin, bodies etc.
This should open some eyes to what the starting product was. - BradC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This guy has major skills, I don't think I've seen quite such extreme retouching. It makes me feel that my knowledge of working with images is very insignificant.
- chopstickhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1of course, maybe i just think it's easy after the hundreds of hours i have spent with photoshop... ;-)
- robusteza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1oh come on, please post a picture of your chick in a bikini under direct light. this girl besides having a horrific mystic tan, has a pretty effing nice body.
- blueangel5383, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow.. so you can be scary looking and still be a model.... just find a PS-master....
- allenu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Nobody's going to reproduce the Mona Lisa, but they wil surely learn from the techniques Da Vinci used in their own work. Let people learn things so they can better themselves.
Knowledge is power--for real! - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is the future
- yathosho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1slashdotted a year ago?
- jabelar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Getting worse with high-def formats
As we get large-format, high-definition movies and television it turns out everyone looks "blemished". It is a big problem for hollywood and I've heard actresses contracts are now very specific about extra touch-ups and lighting stuff that needs to be done if they're being shot for high-def. And don't even think about watching porn in large-format, high-def ... trust me! - McShred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I work for huge company and we do this stuff everyday. His work is good and it is nice peek behind the curtain.
Every image in print can not be trust as truth. Example the Natural Health magazine gets 10-20 hours of retouching to the cover image. Which makes it not so Natural. - pageld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and could be cheaper to boot!
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sorry to be a devils advocate because I understand the point you are trying to make but not every model shoot requires anywhere near that amount of retouching to create magazine quality photos.
Stephen Eastwood is a model photographer who presents what I consider to be magazine quality photos without much need for post processing. Sure, he has a good makeup artist but his models are really that good looking and his use of light is top notch.
http://www.stepheneastwood.com/ -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is