|
Reichstag posted:Nothing new, but still sickening. I don't have as much problem with this as with the photoshopping where they make women skinnier or taller or whatever because all they're doing here is what can be done mostly with better lighting and a better makeup artist. Some of these images are largely white balance and level fixes. The last one is hilarious because all they did was add a shitload of flare. They're not making waists smaller or boobs bigger or necks longer. Nor are they taking women of colour and "whitening" their features. That level of modification is a bad influence on women and girls.
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
I know virtually everyone loves to rail on retouching but that's the nature of the industry. One guy putting down his wacom isn't going to do anything. It's a tremendously difficult skill and I have respect for any professional retoucher. It can definitely be taken too far sometimes but what images are truthful?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I know virtually everyone loves to rail on retouching but that's the nature of the industry. One guy putting down his wacom isn't going to do anything. I don't have a problem with general retouching, I ususally adjust an image when processing, removing small blemishes and the like and nothing else. As do a lot of people. Still, as dishonest as photography often is by its nature doesn't mean I can approve of the kind of thing shown in that link. If nothing else they're just not interesting images because they're smudged into blandness. Also a lot of things take great skill, not all of them deserve respect. Though I'm pretty neutral on people who do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Ha! Has 90% of porn already been ruined for you by your expanding knowledge of photography? "Ooooh... yeah, she's looking good.... waitaminute - that white balance is way off. And what's with cutting off her feet? Ugh, blown highlights!" If anything I find porn is better lit than most standard photos I find.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 04:23
|
|
|
The President's Photographer (PBS), as narrated by Morgan Freeman. This program follows Pete Souza, the photographer for the Obama Administration. It's fun to watch and shows some interesting behind-the-scenes. He also takes some very nice pictures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 06:47
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I know virtually everyone loves to rail on retouching but that's the nature of the industry. One guy putting down his wacom isn't going to do anything.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
Why even bother doing the make-up half assed if you're just going to paint it on at the end?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
I was just looking at this interesting project. Apologies if it has already been posted somewhere:     http://irinawerning.com/back-to-the-fut/back-to-the-future/ edit: link mrlego fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Feb 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 10:25
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Nothing new, but still sickening. Yep. Not necessarily the retouching, but more the women must be flawless objects beyond what is possible in real life so that men can gaze. But the retouching is truly over the top and removes almost all their humanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 10:39
|
|
|
mrlego posted:I was just looking at this interesting project. Apologies if it has already been posted somewhere: I linked it on the last page, but you put more effort in. They did such a good job matching the clothing/processing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 13:02
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yep. Not necessarily the retouching, but more the women must be flawless objects beyond what is possible in real life so that men can gaze. Not having retouching wouldn't change that. You'd just have a much smaller pool of models that would actually be super gorgeous without retouching. The pressure on models to have eating disorders or treat their body really unhealthily would be increased as there is no safety net but their physical appearance. The industry is already terrible in that regard anyway. I think most people that complain about retouching complain about bad retouching - if it's good you're not going to know the difference unless you see a rollover. Of course it's dangerous to rely only on retouching to make an image "good" - I think a lot of retouchers tend to put the worst "before" images in their portfolio to demonstrate how skillful they are. The vast majority of work I imagine wouldn't need much work on it because it already is essentially finished but because of client or industry demands it needs that extra mile of work on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Not having retouching wouldn't change that. You'd just have a much smaller pool of models that would actually be super gorgeous without retouching. The pressure on models to have eating disorders or treat their body really unhealthily would be increased as there is no safety net but their physical appearance. The industry is already terrible in that regard anyway. My problem is not that generally they engage in retouching, even over the top retouching, for some purposes. The goal isn't really to represent anything accurately, after all. However, I find it hilarious that they 'shop out every mole and freckle as if those things are obviously bad or objectionable. Zits? Sure, you're correcting a temporary blemish. Adjusting lighting/shadows/hair color? Why not. But jeez, freckles? Moles? What the hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 16:07
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Not having retouching wouldn't change that. You'd just have a much smaller pool of models that would actually be super gorgeous without retouching. The pressure on models to have eating disorders or treat their body really unhealthily would be increased as there is no safety net but their physical appearance. The industry is already terrible in that regard anyway. The irony being that the girls with the great skin are usually the ones that eat healthy, use less makeup and don't tan themselves to a crisp.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:But jeez, freckles? Moles? What the hell. I really don't give two craps about retouched photos, as long as they're not presented as reality. But when it comes down to photographing models, I do find it a bit offensive that an arbitrary group of people have decided to define what beauty is for the rest of us, and every picture has to exemplify that ideal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 16:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Why even bother doing the make-up half assed if you're just going to paint it on at the end? xzzy posted:Or stamping in an entirely new skin because the original didn't have a perfect pattern of bumps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I agree with you, but this has been the case as long as artists have been depicting the human form. Well, yes. But the internet has freed people to distribute whatever they want to anyone that wants to search for it. Granted, when looking for the 'human form', the vast majority of it is porn related, but at least it's not retouched!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:My problem is not that generally they engage in retouching, even over the top retouching, for some purposes. The goal isn't really to represent anything accurately, after all. However, I find it hilarious that they 'shop out every mole and freckle as if those things are obviously bad or objectionable. Zits? Sure, you're correcting a temporary blemish. Adjusting lighting/shadows/hair color? Why not. But jeez, freckles? Moles? What the hell. Good retouchers will leave freckles and moles. It's worth bearing in mind that a retoucher's portfolio is going to be showing that they can turn pictures most people would trash into something approaching a good photo. It's how they sell themselves. Giving a good starter image a finishing touch isn't nearly as dramatic. That's why I'm not a huge fan of over the top retouching because I'd rather get as much right before processing rather than on relying on a retoucher to "save" the images with post. I can't help but think of a smug retoucher thinking that they're the most important person in a shoot. Good model, good makeup, good photography + subtle retouching = profit Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2011 17:57
|
|
|
The X100 is now available in Australia at the semi-reasonable price of AUD$1219 http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/prod7248.htm So loving tempting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
I can't imagine getting it without the premium leather case, fyi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
I think this pretty much sums up my feelings on the X-100quote:Tonight I met friend of mine who was loaned a Fujifilm X-100 by a camera magazine for a review in an upcoming issue. Due to an agreement with the editors I promised I wouldn’t post the picture I shot of it until it officially goes on sale. http://tokyocamerastyle.com/post/3362174152/tonight-i-met-friend-of-mine-who-was-loaned-a
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 19:44
|
|
|
I HATE CARS posted:I think this pretty much sums up my feelings on the X-100 lol. Neither the g12 nor gxr offer even remotely similar image quality. Even at iso 100, neither can throw the background out of focus, and above iso 800 the difference is laughable in dynamic range and noise. 2nd, DPreview, has said the build quality feels incredible and is bested only by the Leica m9 in build quality (of recent cameras). So far of the people who have handled it, the ones who use digital have said that it feels well put together and firm. The people who are heavy film shooters and seem to have a chip against anything digital being good, have all tried to make it sound flimsy. That's even besides the fact that I've never had a camera, even a cheap plastic point and shoot explode in my hand. Even odder still is that he says a camera made entirely out of magnesium, with all metal dials and focus/aperture rings, feels "plasticy". Me thinks his bias shows a bit too much. A film point and shoot only makes sense if you enjoy film, and have access to cheap film processing. True in the US and Japan, and probably a few other markets, but there are plenty of places where even a year's worth of color film and processing costs as much or more than the x100.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
What is it with those people and offering "buy a Leica M6" as the ultimate advice possible? They're not comparible in the least, you'd be buying an x100 for convenience with a very high image quality. This is exactly what an older 35mm film camera doesn't offer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
The GXR has the potential to surprise. Ricoh is coming out with an interchangeable lens mount unit, possibly in M-mount or m4/3. They've already got an APS-C module, so pairing the two shouldn't be too much of a technical feat. But then again, once it's all said and done, it'll probably cost more than the X100 once all the appropriate components are put together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
HPL posted:The GXR has the potential to surprise. Ricoh is coming out with an interchangeable lens mount unit, possibly in M-mount or m4/3. They've already got an APS-C module, so pairing the two shouldn't be too much of a technical feat. But then again, once it's all said and done, it'll probably cost more than the X100 once all the appropriate components are put together. Ooops, was mistaking for the Ricoh P&S. Yeah their aps-c looks comparable to the leica x1 in iso, but the x100 samples look at least a stop better in noise, possibly two. Plus their fixed primes are f/2.5 and no viewfinder solution. The same compromises you have to make with the leica x1. X1 is 2.8, GXR is 2.5, and neither have viewfinders that aren't flimsy attachments that make it bulkier, an odd shape, and zero optical connection for any kind of AF confirm or other info. I don't understand why someone would suggest it over the x100 as if it's just as good, when it's got a slower lens, costs the same and has no viewfinder. You'd think a film snob would be all about an optical viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I don't understand why someone would suggest it over the x100 as if it's just as good, when it's got a slower lens, costs the same and has no viewfinder. You'd think a film snob would be all about an optical viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2011 21:48
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:They're not film snobs, they're camera snobs. Buying a Leica makes your penis bigger. The Leica is the penis. No Leica = No Penis
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
I just bought a GoPro Hero camera, because it looks kick-rear end and I've been hunting a fish-eye point and shoot since forever and I really like the videos from it. Except because people don't tag the camera they use, usually, when putting a video on youtube, the only videos I can find are from GoPro themselves. And whilst they're all glorious, I do feel kinda like a sucker. On the other hand, I haven't checked but it looks exactly like the camera strapped to the door during the poop bungee scene in Jackass 3D. That's a nice advertisement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
The GoPro is extremely common.. watch some "extreme" sports, you'll see the little silver boxes all over the place. Friend let me play with his over the summer.. the video that comes out of it is pretty spectacular for the size of the thing. Only downside is it hates slow SD cards, you gotta get the class 10 stuff or you'll get hitching in the video.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Friend let me play with his over the summer.. the video that comes out of it is pretty spectacular for the size of the thing. Only downside is it hates slow SD cards, you gotta get the class 10 stuff or you'll get hitching in the video. You should link me to some of his videos because I'm linking you to videos I made by welding up vise grips and attached my D3s to things at my old work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5iMLcuwbs0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HpsCas63E Also, great. Another $200 for a memory card. At least there's a slot for it in my macbook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
I like the second video. Like xzzy said, GoPros are everywhere. Popular with bikers too: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gopro+motorcycle&page=&utm_source=opensearch I want to try one too :/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Amazon user review for the Nikon F6:quote:Will not work with Digital Media, Camera will not work with CompactFlash or other digital media. You must buy a cartridge of tape, which allows for just 24 shots. No LCD screen with image playback. Very disappointed and returned. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:48
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Amazon user review for the Nikon F6: I'm going to say it's a joke review like you see with that gently caress-off massive Sigma lens (ie don't mount it on your cat.) That's what I'm hoping at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
And have you seen the prices of cartridges of tape lately? Fuggedaboudit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Amazon user review for the Nikon F6: That's fantastic and has to be a troll. If not I love it even more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
subx posted:That's fantastic and has to be a troll. If not I love it even more. the 1 star rating made it for me
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
That F6 is sexy as gently caress though, realtalk. I don't care what people say about classic cameras looking better, I'm in love with the modern Nikon bodies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
From another review of the same guy:quote:I have this on my D80 all the time. I bought it to replace my mid-range zoom 18-135mm kit lens after reading on Ken Rockwell's site. I also bought a 70-300mm G lens for $140. I now have the range I always wanted and don't care that I have to change lenses (I didn't want to spend $650 on the 18-200mm). I also have a 50mm f1.8 http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A17TDZP3FJUKV2/ref=cm_pdp_rev_title_1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2J1NTXD0ZLIEW
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:That F6 is sexy as gently caress though, realtalk. I don't care what people say about classic cameras looking better, I'm in love with the modern Nikon bodies. I stumbled on the Petri Color 35 a few days ago, it has the same control layout as a modern Nikon, in 1968!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I think a lot of retouchers tend to put the worst "before" images in their portfolio to demonstrate how skillful they are. The vast majority of work I imagine wouldn't need much work on it because it already is essentially finished but because of client or industry demands it needs that extra mile of work on it. This is exactly what I do for my retouching portfolio. I want to show people I can fix their disasters. Anyone with mild competence in PS can make a good image better, it takes a lot of skill to take someone else's total gently caress up and return something useful. quote:Yep. Not necessarily the retouching, but more the women must be flawless objects beyond what is possible in real life so that men can gaze. But the vast majority of fashion images are produced, styled, and commissioned by gay men and are largely consumed by straight women. I would be interested in hearing what your perspective on that is (maybe this topic deserves it's own thread, it's interesting). I of course can't google the quote or remember who said it, but I remember someone making headlines not that long ago for calling fashion models "unfuckable gay men's fantasies" (I remember it being in the NYT if anyone knows what I'm talking about). I think there are obvious social implications for the kinds of images of women we commonly see in media, which is kind of bizarre when you think about who is actually buying fashion magazines. I say the fashion industry specifically because that is always the scapegoat brought out when people talk about unrealistic beauty standards / retouching. brad industry fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Feb 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
It might be worth having a super serious thread to contain all the retouching is evil and what is art topics that come up every month or so
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2011 03:01
|
|