What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
109 Comments
- inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71This is bull, this is an example of one photographer. I've spent years working in hollywood, and every single photo gets retouched, don't kid yourself.. celebrities in general get a percentage of photo approvals, for example, Pamela Anderson on a film session would get 25% approvals, meaning that she could kill 25% of all the photos the photographer took. Often in the contract it states that if Pam doesn't send her picks to the photographer in 48 hours, all photos are automatically approved.
I cannot keep track of the number of times we were called by a celebrities manager to remove "cough... cough.. down there it's showing to much..." aka removing camel toes..
lol... ALLL celebrity photos are retouched, not only that often we will take a no-name model, and photograph them after the session in the same poses so we have spare body parts, even going so far as to put the celebrities head on a body they don't even own!
If you ever see a celebrity in person, generally you will notice that most aren't over 5'5, even the ones that appear to be big, tough men in the movies are little twirps in real life. And most of them look really plan, even scarier the "supposedly" super-hot super models are GROSS, seriously if you've ever wondered why most supermodels are dating fat, old, rich white guys instead of leading men, it's because models look good on TV and film but not in real life, all their features are overdraw and they have giant UGLY heads. - devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52They look great because the photographer wants them to look great.... take a ton of shots - like 100 at a single celeb encounter, take the best one, iron out any little wrinkles or freckles, and you're done. People will think they always look like that. It's that simple.
It's easy the other way around too. Take the WORST of those 100 shots, mess with the colors so they look pale and green, and maybe crop it badly or zoom in too much. Boom, tabloid cover "OMG THIS PERSON IS UGLY" - grouchyman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+52It's not the equipment. Give some credit to the people behind the lens.
- chocobomog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+51Roseanne looked good?!? How many gallons of beer did you chug for that to happen?
- sn0re, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43Take a photography class at your local JC. You may never be a professional photographer, but understanding the basics will improve your photos immensely.
- spriggig, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39Best photo tip ever:
When composing in-camera, imagine that the image, be it in the viewfinder or on the LCD screen is the final, actual photo--look at all four corners and everything in between your subject and the corners.
Most snap shooters don't get close enough to their subject because they look *through* the viewfinder and visually focus on the subject, ignoring the background and surrounding features--the same way they use their eyes alone. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Site slow, use this link
http://www.youtube.com/v/L8wrxlP8Mcg - raindogmx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28I'm more interested in why "candid" pictures like red carpet ones look way better than my vacation photos.
From experience I know that:
Those are taken by professional photographers while mine are taken by me, an amateur.
They waste lots of shots trying to get the best one while I try to nail it in one or two shots at most.
They have time to plan their shots well beforehand when I shot mine almost from the heart.
Sometimes my family photos are much more emotive than celebrity ones, as pictures themselves, not because i care for the subejcts.
I don't like what the title leads to believe since it seems it's about paparazzi or candid photos when it's actually about outdoor professional portraits. - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+25Dude, hook us up with your secret stash of celebrity photos.
- The_Mule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23It's a sad fact of life.... Most photographers wind up with one good shot for every 50+ shots they take.
- Derferman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+29This video is depressing, as it proves I won't ever be able to get that professional look without a great deal of effort. I guess I am doomed to point and click forever
- bitcloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I work in this industry, and I can tell you that it is 90% wank..
did they really need a timelapse camera to capture the guy setting up two lights and a fleccy? It looks pretty busy because 26 hangers-on are moving around having conversations, but the whole thing is a total wank... Sure, get some good lighting a decent lens and an eye for composition, but that photo is no 20 person production. You can charge more if it seems complicated, but it's simply not. - daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18indyinno
If by great you mean "look like they were taken with a low resolution web-cam" then yeah, they do. - grouchyman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The great Ansel Adams said he was lucky if he got one decent print for every 10,000 images.
- bobcrotch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Kind of cool stop motion sort of thing, but who didn't really know that this is the type of thing that happened at a photo shoot? What did you expect a drunk 20 something teenybopper taking photos with her phone?
- iamcrazyed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Why amateur websites look like crap"
Microsoft Frontpage. Geez, what a travesty of a website, dude. - ethangage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15my pictures don't look like the ones in this magazine because i don't take pictures of martin scorsese. we've just never invited him on our vacations.
- zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15HS kids refused to take a nice and small canon digital cam to a party, because he already got camera on the phone. There goes trying to introduce a kid to photography.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Totally agree. Case in point: ads for the new show Shark, featuring James Woods looking younger than he did in Videodrome.
:P - raithetarkon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I think for some reason he is grouping rosanne barr with heidi klum and being sarcastic about them looking good... but its still a retarded comment.
- Jo9100, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Have you ever gone on vacation and come back wondering why your photos just don ’t look as good as the ones you see in magazines?"
yeah but why?? - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@avatarpalin:
I'm going to film school right now for motion pictures, and I can tell you from experience that working on sets and seeing how it works is way more educational than taking classes. There's no substitute for experience. It looks like a lot of work, but what you see in this video is nothing compared to what goes into a typical shoot from a movie. All it took for that shot was a couple c-stands holding flags and screens to block out or reduce the light falling on Mr. Scorcese, a softbox for fill light, and flash for key light. Very simple setup. If this video impresses you, being on any movie set for half an hour would blow your mind. That's not a criticism of still photography or the work these guys did. My point is just that if this is what it takes to shoot a person standing in one spot, imagine how much it takes to film a scene where the camera moves through three different rooms filled with dozens of people interacting with each other. - Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The best advice you could possibly get out of a short digg comment:
Use an off-camera flash or don't use any flash at all.
Seriously, a disposable camera can take a better photo than a $3000 DSLR if the lighting is right. - aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Meat Ball Head OMG!
I have seen so many women around here that look like meat balls on a stick like an appetizer tray!
That is so funny....really. You just made my day. - spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The simple answer is that they set up the lighting in their shots with various diffusers, reflectors and light sources, as well as taking two hundred shots for every one good one that comes out.
Just keep taking photos until you figure out what works for you. With digital cameras shooting an extra 100 photos doesnt cost you an extra cent. - AlanLivingston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8All that work to take a picture of some old guy taking a piss on a couple of crates.
Why? - r©ain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Wow! I was blown away! I've always been wondering why I never seem to be able to take professional looking photos with my kodak disposable while stumbling drunk from too many margaritas while kicking it with my brahs in Cancun!
Thank you Digg!!1! Digg++++++++++++++++++++ - drivenfaroff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Correct lighting is one of the main things that separates the pros from everyone else.
- DforSpiD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Also the best way to get good photos is to just keep snapping, I've got some amazing shots, and it was all by accident. Keep your camera with you and get snap happy, you'll do fine, and some WILL look professional, and you willl begin to see what conditions effect photos by trial and error.
But i suppose it couldn't hurt to listen to people who know what they're talking about too...
Also most celebs look like aliens...
... You look me in the eyes and tell me Gwen Stefani's human... - SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8So what are we to be shocked at by this revelation?
That time and effort go into professional photography? Or that attention is paid to detail when the pictures are going to go into national publications?
What'll we find out next, that fight scenes in action movies are choreographed? - kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This just in: Area man surprised professionals are better than amateurs
- Sil369, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At least the Dove commercials and ads make an effort to show the common public what really goes into marketing/skin product ads/etc
- soapycub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
- Ansel Adams - dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here is a tip to DRASTICALLY improve your photos if you don't know this already. If your camera supports an external flash, go buy a nice $200 flash with a swivel head. It's not the quality of the flash so much as the ability to diffuse light realistically by bouncing the light off the ceiling, or if outdoors, using an omni hood to not make highlights so harsh. If you have a D-SLR, an $80 50mm 1.8/f lens and a flash that does omni/bounce, you will be able to impress yourself with the most trivial pictures as long as everything is in focus.
- MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6dzapffe190 links to the pixelated fullscreen flash video, use gamerply5's link further down if you want the usual Youtube resolution.
- Fuckwad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Not with that attitude. Don't you ever give up damn it!
- inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Brad Pitt is a practically a little person, he is however a nice guy, when celebrities visit the set or studio everyone judges them. Angelina has had more plastic surgery, well then .... say most celebrities. She's good looking, so much so that she doesn't look real. But she is the exception, most celebs you wouldn't pick out, unless you were in hollywood. Even then sometimes you look twice and say to yourself "Hey that guy kind of looks like Brad Pit." The sad truth is that people in hollywood have non-stop plastic surgery, it's a sad cycle too, because if you don't get it the studios are always talking about how they are going to go with a "younger, better model." Seriously though I think it's comedic, that nobody pays attention to how much celebrities have had plastic surgery. For example that chiseled jaw look that you find yourself staring in the mirror wishing you had? Celebrities aren't born that way, it's plastic surgery and smoking crack cocaine (I'm dead serious about the last) That's how they get the hollow face, that is highly overdrawn, go back 3-4 years or get a yearbook photo, and look at it very, very closely, you'll notice that most celebrities don't even have the same nose!
Go back to the movie "Hackers" with Angelina, and notice how she's not that beatiful, she doesn't even have the same face!
Also all celebrities lie about there age, the studios even help them get false information on their drivers license. Women who claim to be 31 are usually 38. Add at least 5 years to every person in hollywoods age. - flintmich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4get a white foamcore board (any art supply store), some inspiration, some cool backgrounds, a helper, and a digital camera that can take shallow depth of field (meaning the background is blurry) photos, and you'll be amazed at what you can do. have the helper use the foamcore to bounce the available light (sunlight, roomlight, whatever) up toward the face of your subject, will light them nicely. the background will fall off and be blurry, because of your nice digital camera.
after a while, experimenting with this setup, and of course getting those cool backgrounds and major inspiration, and you're on your way. just keep shooting! - leony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pros shoot more, and show less. Statistically amateurs are better at getting good shots... the Pros are good at providing good shots on demand because they shoot a lot more and edit ruthlesly. Only about 1% of all shots is ever seen by anyone outside a photographer's studio.
Plus just look at how many TEST shots are taken before the subject even arrives... how many tests did you shoot at your last vocation? - 2Deluxe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a model, I can testify to the fact that it takes an astronomical amount of time and resources to do even what look like the simplest shots. Usually for a two-page spread I'm at a shoot from 10 till 5. Pretty amazing when you consider that it's all for two pages.
- Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Photoshop skills will never make up for being a crap photographer.
- mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Derferman:
It's not as complex as it looks. Most of those people aren't doing anything relevant to the shoot the whole time. The same work could be accomplished with only the photographer and a couple assistants. It doesn't really take much time to setup the equipment they used; the hardest part is just deciding what tools are necessary to accomplish what you need. - kcostello1086, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3indoor portrait shoots are best lit with studio strobes and either softboxes or umbrellas. strobes are generally neutral in color cast (around 5500K) and use xenon lamps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_flash_lamp
continuous lighting is also occasionally used, but runs warmer than strobes and uses much more power. - alceria, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow, totally staged looking celebrity photos are in fact staged with a production crew. Did anyone really except anything different? *eyeroll*
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You don't really need a crew and lots of technology to take good portraits.
Two flashes with omnibounce (which you DON'T aim directly at the target), a dSLR with a good portrait lens (a 50mm prime, say). Position the flashes (the only trick here is the position, aim, and power of the flashes), put a little thought into what the background will look like, frame, and shoot a series of shots (never shoot just one shot). - audiowizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2haha what a crappy article:
"The reason celebrity photos always look so great is:
A professional photographer takes them, and they have LOTS of practice, trial and error, and experimentation under their belt.
The process involves a huge crew, elaborate set, and a lot of time."
gee thanks... - Mc_Carter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7its called photoshop
- Wonotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wrong.
- broeks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I want to meet this twenty something teeny bopper
- MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Next up: the Dove ad.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is