This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > August 2005 > Photo retouching at its best
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Photo retouching at its best
|
|
|
|
| Robert Barnett 2005-08-26, 7:16 pm |
| If you like fake looking images.
"MZ" <check@signature.net> wrote in message
news:denjig$ive$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I just found out this 10 minutes ago and I'm still on the website. This guy
>really knows his Photoshop :)
> http://glennferon.com.nyud.net:8090...lio1/index.html
>
> --
> MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
> I am in shape. Round is a shape.
> http://www.visualfood.net
>
| |
|
| On 2005-08-26 19:47:00 +0200, "Robert Barnett" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
> If you like fake looking images.
I don't like fake looking images but obviously the majority of the
world does since we see them on TV, in magazines, on billboards, etc.
The only intention with this post was to share an interesting link
where Photoshop users can see what can really be done with Photoshop
when it comes to photo retouching.
--
MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
http://www.visualfood.net
| |
|
| I understand what Rob means I'm afraid. The images on there appear to be
'too' touched up
and have become almoset cartooned or characatured in appearance.
the guy is obvioulsy tallented, but takes his efforts too far IMHO
Rich
www.digitalmood.co.uk
"MZ" <check@signature.net> wrote in message
news:denl6c$lj1$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
> On 2005-08-26 19:47:00 +0200, "Robert Barnett" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
>
>
> I don't like fake looking images but obviously the majority of the world
> does since we see them on TV, in magazines, on billboards, etc. The only
> intention with this post was to share an interesting link where Photoshop
> users can see what can really be done with Photoshop when it comes to
> photo retouching.
>
> --
> MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
> I am in shape. Round is a shape.
> http://www.visualfood.net
>
| |
| harrylimey 2005-08-26, 7:16 pm |
| On 2005-08-26 19:47:00 +0200, "Robert Barnett" <nos...@nospam.com>
said:
>Photoshop users can see what can really be done with Photoshop when it comes to photo retouching.
I think a lot of the users on this forum know what Photoshop can do!!
Time after time in books and online tutorials you see a phrase
indicating that sublety is needed in the technique used, and whilst
these pictures are impressive they do not look real and they do not
look subtle!!
Mind you I take your point when you say "I don't like fake looking
images but obviously the majority of the world does" because Mr Ferons
client list is pretty impressive, and he is probably making lots of
money! - If I had clients like those I would try to give them what they
want too.
| |
|
| > On 2005-08-26 19:47:00 +0200, "Robert Barnett" <nos...@nospam.com>
> said:
>
> If I had clients like those I would try to give them what they want too.
My point exactly :)
> I think a lot of the users on this forum know what Photoshop can do!!
It wasn't my intention to imply that they don't but I'm sure that not
everyone watching this group has the same skill level.
If posting references to other people's work and/or links to tutorials
and websites is against the posting rules than I'll just refrain from
posting similar stuff in the future. I just thought people would be
interested, personal taste aside.
--
MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
http://www.visualfood.net
| |
|
| Hey, no-one said it wasn't interesting MZ.
Rich
www.digitalmood.co.uk
"MZ" <check@signature.net> wrote in message
news:denns0$paq$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>
> My point exactly :)
>
>
> It wasn't my intention to imply that they don't but I'm sure that not
> everyone watching this group has the same skill level.
>
> If posting references to other people's work and/or links to tutorials and
> websites is against the posting rules than I'll just refrain from posting
> similar stuff in the future. I just thought people would be interested,
> personal taste aside.
>
> --
> MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
> I am in shape. Round is a shape.
> http://www.visualfood.net
>
| |
| Lorem Ipsum 2005-08-26, 7:16 pm |
|
It's a nasty, high-paying job but somebody has to do it!
| |
| Tom Ellliott 2005-08-27, 7:16 am |
| Many thanks for the link!
As to the nay sayers:
Glenn is a retoucher. His job is to do what is impossible to do in the
actual shoot. All of his samples seemed to be cover/glamour shots, which is
an entire different world than than of the "reality/photojournalistic"
photography. He is not a photographer, he saves the photographer'clients
XXX!!! Plus he only follows the clients taste. If the client has no taste,
well he can always refuse the job, but I doubt that in the beginning he
turned down much work. Probably he now can turn it down for he is talented.
As you can see by viewing the originals, the human body is rarely photo
perfect.
Thanks again for the great, inspirational, tutorial site.
Yours truly,
Tom Elliott
Photographer
http://www.tom-elliott-photography.com
"MZ" <check@signature.net> wrote in message
news:denjig$ive$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>I just found out this 10 minutes ago and I'm still on the website. This guy
>really knows his Photoshop :)
> http://glennferon.com.nyud.net:8090...lio1/index.html
>
> --
> MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
> I am in shape. Round is a shape.
> http://www.visualfood.net
>
| |
| no.canned.pork 2005-08-27, 7:17 pm |
| MZ <check@signature.net> wrote:
> I just found out this 10 minutes ago and I'm still on the website. This
> guy really knows his Photoshop :)
> http://glennferon.com.nyud.net:8090...lio1/index.html
>
As you say this guy really knows his stuff. But most of the retouched images
don't do it for me.
IMO taking the modelling out of models doesn't always equal an improvement.
And plastic looking skin tones seem to belong in the extravagant fantasies
of the marketing department.
--
T Ritchie (Sr)
Save a rainforest: Eat Brazil nuts - www.mongabay.com/1003.htm
| |
| Tom Ellliott 2005-08-27, 7:17 pm |
| Hmm, let me be a little more spacific:
Not that it was impossible, but lots of stuff happens during a photo
session: running out of time, caused by difficult models, clients, support
staff, running out of or not having the right tools to do the shoot because
of poor planing.
I could go on.
In my small world of doing a newsletter every month and a color calendar
once a year I have had to do some corrective retouching, like hiding a belly
button on an underage child that was in a theatrical production and the
producers, (even though they approved the costume) later had misgivings
about having it in print FOR EVER and ALL to see.
Yes I agree that some were not to my taste and were strickly a judgement
call as in the case of a woman on a bed that had two lamps in the
background. Looking at the before shot the lamps really did not bother me,
but the after picture without the lamps was, IMHO, better. As to skin tones
etc, again it is taste and client controll.
What I really like about the site is that one rarely gets to see "before and
after" shots. I mean you see the origninal shot, the retouched shot and then
you get to see the finished cover that the retouched photo was used in.
The internet is great for that kind of education. So I really do not fault
the retoucher, infact I would consider hiring him for the reason he does
fulfill the clients wishes.
Isn't that what we all are about : Pleasing the client and getting the job
done??
Anyway, have fun and make pictures.
Yours,
Tom Elliott
"Lorem Ipsum" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11h0jakg5mdu09b@news.supernews.com...
> "Tom Ellliott" <1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:JjVPe.4160$7F.1868@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> What he does can be done during the shoot: Dip the ladies in red tinted
> chocolate to fix the skin, plastic wrap their thighs for the slim look, a
> little more wonder in the wonderbra... that sort of thing.
>
>
>
| |
| Hecate 2005-08-27, 11:14 pm |
| On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 17:21:39 -0400, "Tom Ellliott"
<1stroke@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Isn't that what we all are about : Pleasing the client and getting the job
>done??
Yes, even if the clients have no taste and, taking a quick look at the
images, apparently Neanderthal views of women.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
| |
|
| On 2005-08-28 02:14:16 +0200, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> said:
>
> Yes, even if the clients have no taste and, taking a quick look at the
> images, apparently Neanderthal views of women.
Judging from the fact that the majority of these photos is why men all
over the world buy men magazines, bad taste is limited to the majority
of the population. Once again, the original post was not about taste,
it's about what can be done with Photoshop.
Browsing the archives of this NG I found many posters with portfolios
filled with a myriad of clients but with images and logos that say: "I
have as much taste as a dead squirrel". That, however, doesn't stop
them from having clients since they too don't have taste.
Judging a man's retouching technique based on what you think looks
nice, attractive or acceptable is just plain stupid. I think Formula 1
and Nascar are sports that only a brain dead idiot could enjoy to watch
or participate in, but that doesn't diminish the fact that those who
drive the vehicles are amazing drivers. The majority of the I know
people don't share my taste for sports and do enjoy watching cars go in
circles. That's why these sports exist.
--
MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
http://www.visualfood.net
| |
| marika 2005-08-28, 7:15 pm |
|
MZ
MZ wrote:
> Judging from the fact that the majority of these photos is why men all
> over the world buy men magazines, bad taste is limited to the majority
> of the population. Once again, the original post was not about taste,
> it's about what can be done with Photoshop.
>
they had a contemporary jewelry show at the renwick last year. there
were things exhibited there that i never in a million years would
consider wearing, never mind think of it as jewelry
robert ebendorf had one form of odd jewlerly that was made of a
plastic that was used in cooking utensils i don't remember what the
plastic
was called something like formone or something like that
they showed it in another case splintered, the neat thing abou it was
that when it was broken it looked a
bit like shale.
mk5000
"it's time to dance baby, and I'm your DJ"--coolio
but not jewelry
| |
| Derek Fountain 2005-08-28, 7:15 pm |
| > Judging from the fact that the majority of these photos is why men all
> over the world buy men magazines, bad taste is limited to the majority
> of the population.
Men, huh? I read magazines with a fairly bloke-ish subject matter -
cars, digital cameras, computers - and my significant other reads
magazines which attract a female audience: fashion, style, gossip, that
sort of thing. If I wanted to find these sorts of images in a magazine
in our house, it wouldn't be my magazine pile I'd head for.
| |
|
| On 2005-08-28 16:40:30 +0200, Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> said:
> Men, huh? I read magazines with a fairly bloke-ish subject matter -
> cars, digital cameras, computers - and my significant other reads
> magazines which attract a female audience: fashion, style, gossip, that
> sort of thing. If I wanted to find these sorts of images in a magazine
> in our house, it wouldn't be my magazine pile I'd head for.
You're right, many are in women magazines as well, probly most of them.
But thinking that the celebrities in the magazines you read are not
retouched is just silly :)
--
MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
http://www.visualfood.net
| |
| Hecate 2005-08-28, 11:14 pm |
| On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:10:46 +0200, MZ <check@signature.net> wrote:
>On 2005-08-28 02:14:16 +0200, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> said:
>
>
>Judging from the fact that the majority of these photos is why men all
>over the world buy men magazines, bad taste is limited to the majority
>of the population.
I hate to disabuse your male view of the world, but men are *not* the
majority. The majority are women by 52% to 48%. See, you're making
exactly the same kind of assumptions.
>Once again, the original post was not about taste,
>it's about what can be done with Photoshop.
I agree - but the assumption from the original post was that this was
a *good* thing...
>Browsing the archives of this NG I found many posters with portfolios
>filled with a myriad of clients but with images and logos that say: "I
>have as much taste as a dead squirrel". That, however, doesn't stop
>them from having clients since they too don't have taste.
Absolutely - if you're in that field then you have to give the client
what they want - which was my point exactly - give the Neanderthals
what they want.
>Judging a man's retouching technique based on what you think looks
>nice, attractive or acceptable is just plain stupid.
Ah, but I didn't comment on his technique, only on the output. I do
wonder why you're protesting so much - perhaps you like images for
Neanderthals?
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
| |
|
| On 2005-08-29 01:44:39 +0200, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> said:
> Ah, but I didn't comment on his technique, only on the output. I do
> wonder why you're protesting so much - perhaps you like images for
> Neanderthals?
Maybe I do indeed. Thanks for setting me straight.
--
MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
I am in shape. Round is a shape.
http://www.visualfood.net
| |
| KatWoman 2005-08-29, 7:15 pm |
|
"MZ" <check@signature.net> wrote in message
news:dev2vn$8lu$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
> On 2005-08-29 01:44:39 +0200, Hecate <hecate@newsguy.com> said:
>
>
> Maybe I do indeed. Thanks for setting me straight.
>
> --
> MZ - rijeka /at/ XXXXXXXXXX
> I am in shape. Round is a shape.
> http://www.visualfood.net
I am not always fond of what I call over-retouching.
I offer my clients 3 levels of retouch on their photos
level one: minor flaws removed, color/curves/level corrections
level 2: dodge and burn eye whites and teeth, maybe tweak the colors more,
overall glows to skin instead of just pimples removed
level 3: ridiculous retouching that has no basis in reality, more close to a
painting or drawing of the person, a representation of what they wish to
look like. Liquefy may used to great effect here.
I must say that in absence of seeing their originals, no matter how much I
have already touched up, certain folks will always ask for MORE retouching.
They try to match up their photos with some ideal in their minds.
We are not creating journalistic, representational photos like passport
pictures.
Traditionally "glamour" type pictures are more like illustrations from
photos. Think Varga girls and Playboy magazine.
I am not a Neanderthal, I'm a woman and faced with a realistic photo of
myself I rather prefer to see myself in the kinder, gentler version of my
photo.
| |
| Hecate 2005-08-29, 7:15 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:26:12 -0400, "KatWoman"
<JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am not a Neanderthal, I'm a woman and faced with a realistic photo of
>myself I rather prefer to see myself in the kinder, gentler version of my
>photo.
>
I think that's true of everyone, but there's a real difference between
a tweaked photo meant to make someone look their best (you know,
blemish removal and so forth, softening lines, etc) and making someone
look unreal (and, even worse, then promoting this unreal image as "how
women should look - either explicitly or through general use in
advertising).
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
| |
| KatWoman 2005-08-30, 7:19 pm |
|
"Hecate" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:eg07h114lda6ocl1mdg9vb8n5uhgvdsdrk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:26:12 -0400, "KatWoman"
> <JolieXPrincessXKatanaXXX@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think that's true of everyone, but there's a real difference between
> a tweaked photo meant to make someone look their best (you know,
> blemish removal and so forth, softening lines, etc) and making someone
> look unreal (and, even worse, then promoting this unreal image as "how
> women should look - either explicitly or through general use in
> advertising).
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
well sex sells and we are bombarded with images of women that are unnatural.
As a woman who works in the beauty fashion world I had a real dilemma
accepting the fact that I was contributing to some women's unhappiness by
creating such images.
BUT I had this moment when I did a model's makeup and she looked in the
mirror and said "Wow, maybe I really am pretty" and at that moment I
realized, I made someone else happier with herself as a person.
So we are not victims of our world, many women desire to look like those
images and do go and get surgically enhanced to match the image in their
minds. I am not saying it's right or wrong, I don't judge it. If a woman
wants to buy Pam Anderson titties, it's her responsibility and her choice.
Anyway fashion is fickle, there is a return to smaller natural breasts now,
and there is a lot of variety in the photos with some being rather 'warts
and all" reality. I particularly admire the photos of Peter Lindbergh, who
shows very glamorous women but with real expression and moods. Beauty with a
little grit.
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|