digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Retouching photos to the max!

gregapodaca.com — Greg Apodaca's web portfolio showcases some of the most EXTREME retouched photos that I have ever seen done. This is worth checking out to see who the real models are behind the magazine covers our society idolizes. His site shows the original scans followed by his retouching of each image. Check this out!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • SteveJabs, 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...
  • 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!
  • 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.
    • 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
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Pecanhead; re:the bikini girl, I agree with you; her face doesn't look too great in the unretouched photos, but a lot of that's got to be the lighting- mainly because I've noticed the same effect in myself.

      As for the others; it looks like he altered her curves for the sake of it, and as for the removal of the "peach fuzz".... actually, it's not as OTT as some I've seen, but it's still not an improvement IMHO.

      Problem is, although it's not the worst example I've seen (it *is* very competent), it still looks retouched. Generally I find that such images do nothing for me because they just look "fake".
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0re: my last comment. Okay, I should have read the commentary; it fell off the bottom of my browser window:-

      "I know, it doesn't seem natural to take out every curve, to airbrush out every blemish, but what the Art Director wants, the Art Director will get. This shows an extreme example of how far an image can be taken. I was asked to retouch almost every aspect of this image, except for the lips."

      In light of the above, I'll give the guy credit for not draining *more* of the life out of the image.

      But it still begs the question of why the face wasn't properly lit in the first place; possibly it was hard to get the lighting right to flatter both her face *and* her curves.
    • 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!
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • pageld, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1and could be cheaper to boot!
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is the future
    • 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.
  • dmitry, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2What he does it great for advertising photography, which is his field, but if he ever tried to get into a photography competition his great masking skills wouldn't matter. Not that it matters, because he's in the advertising field. Where am I going?
    • angulion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Acctually if you RTFA, ha says his not in the photography field at all but just in retouching field.
  • zaid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4some of this stuff is EFFING SCARY...like people are transforming into zombies or are being possessed...FREAKY
  • Merkidemis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Now if that had tutorials to go along with the pics...
    • EssPea, 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.
    • 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!
  • mumbat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5ah, come on anyone with at least a lil knowledge about masking, channels a.s.o. can do that. What's so exciting about this? I don't get it.
  • bossm4n, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2These are decent, but it's nothing more than what hundreds or thousands of other photographers/artists do every day.
    • ronaldpoi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes but not everyday they show the after and before...
  • MASTERPL, 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.
    • 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
    • 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.
  • silkworm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Why don't use CGI models. I'm sick of this pretending.
  • 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..
    • Doobious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4To think that women actually think this kind of beauty is...beauty!
  • OropheR, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1...erm...
  • OropheR, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I prefered the original... (am talking about the women pix)
    • haruki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2As I said above, me too! I like how women really look. Not this fake photoshop stuff, such a turnoff. I'm glad I'm not the only person here who actually is mostly happy to be -gasp- human!
  • supes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Now I get it... Retouching is the reason Jessica Simpson always looks like the Joker with beaver teeth.
  • polybender, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1This is soo old, I saw this YEARS ago. Still very interesting to those that haven't seen it I'm sure.
  • sebastiangomez, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Very well done.. a little too "plasticy" for me but oh well.. I like the treatment done on non-human images better.. the models all look fake to me.. but still way cool to be able to use the power os PS like that.

    Mac News, Final Cut Pro Tutorials, Tips & Movie Reviews: http://macgomez.typepad.com
  • sixlocal, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Yeah, this is rather old. I've seen this linked dozens of times (though maybe not here).

    This is really typical retouching. Not even that great, actually. Everybody does this, and there are literally tens of thousands of people with the photoshop skills to do this. It is really Photoshop 101. Blur tool, healing brush, etc.
  • 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.
    • GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think that a lot of this kind of work has been known as "retouching" since well before photoshop ever existed.
  • 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?
  • 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.


  • jnorris441, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7This link was lame TO THE EXTREME!

    EXXXTREEEEEEEEEEEEME
  • earache, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Ditto, that site is really old. If you were to photograph those people again, you'd now need something more than photoshop. Plastic surgery maybe.
  • 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!
    • MASTERPL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0O didn't notice that there was more than just her face. Wow saddlebags gone, breasts enchanced, happy trail blurred. wow.
    • 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.
  • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Oh, and by the way, apparently the images aren't meant to be "downloaded or distributed". Presumably we're meant to take a plane trip and view them directly on the web server itself.
  • _jens_, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4This link was lame TO THE EXTREME!

    EXXXTREEEEEEEEEEEEME
  • Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I actually shuddered in shock from how ugly the original pictures were.

    It makes me feel almost beautiful.
  • lidflipper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1What is up with all of these "I'm a kick ass photo retouch-er" things on Digg lately? Maybe it because I do this exact same thing 8 hours a day 5 days a week that I don't find them very interesting. Some are good I guess, but this is just one in about a million portfolios.
  • 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.
    • noGoodNamesLeft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Do you actually improve what's there, or just restore the cover to its undamaged state?

      Anyway, what I hate is material that has obviously been rescanned from a printed source; loss of contrast (murky and noisy shadows with loss of gradiation) and definition (mask-like faces, soft edges) and general overall lack of punch. Extra minus points for slapping on unsharp mask in order to make up for the incompetence (enhances the grain from the original printing dots making the thing look noisy and even nastier).

      I have some CDs that look like they are at least third generation (ironically the CDs themselves were digital remasters) and believe me, they are *not* a pretty sight.
  • 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
    • 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.
    • haruki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gwd336, thx for the link. I don't know why people have these touched photos as ideals. Whenever I see a nontouched photos it hits me in such a more real way. All the people in the photos at that link look better in the original. I don't see why the retouch, there is an eroticism in a natural photo. Especially if it's a photo of a regular good looking person.
    • 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/
    • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dupe.
  • TheKidd, 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.
  • r2builder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0There are guys that do this kinda thing waay better than he does... His afters look creepily fake (for the models that is)
  • 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!!!
  • 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.)
  • pants428, 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..
    • pants428, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1of course, maybe i just think it's easy after the hundreds of hours i have spent with photoshop... ;-)
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • imbetterthanu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Holy crap this link is old news.
    • rodrigomuniz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1no digg. very old, but great link.
  • 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.
  • yathosho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1slashdotted a year ago?
  • chopstickhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice work.
  • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3to the maaaax!
  • yi_shiang, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1niceeee
  • blueangel5383, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1wow.. so you can be scary looking and still be a model.... just find a PS-master....
  • the699375, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Wait wait wait, how come this guy posts photoshoped pictures and is fine, but when I did yesterday my story gets buried? Kevin?
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • unimatrixZxero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I really like this page,
  • 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.
  • CHuQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Work of this same quality is available widely for a LOT less. Try this: www.airbrushmypic.com.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.