(this is joie btw)

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:33 AM. Reason : dgfdgf]

11/22/2009 9:32:58 AM

i was about to say: "that's not Joie!"

and then i saw:

Quote :

"(this is joie btw)"

and so i went back to look at the pic and i said to myself: "no, it's not!"

and then i realized that it was Joie posting and i did this:

/supercoolstorybro

11/22/2009 9:35:47 AM

what's the catch?

11/22/2009 9:35:48 AM

he-she ITT

its a trap

11/22/2009 9:38:51 AM

^^^, ^^

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ^]

11/22/2009 9:39:24 AM

her head looks big (though it's probably the hat that's doing that)...the rest of her looks small, so i imagine she doesn't have much of a figure (again, could just be the position she's in)

her eyes are pretty

otherwise, she looks like every other fake blonde model

*shrug*

11/22/2009 9:41:39 AM

she's got a funky face

11/22/2009 9:42:33 AM

Quote :

"i was about to say: "that's not Joie!" and then i saw: Quote : "(this is joie btw)" and so i went back to look at the pic and i said to myself: "no, it's not!" and then i realized that it was Joie posting and i did this: "

this is exactly my mental map too

11/22/2009 9:44:40 AM

her eyes are shopped

11/22/2009 9:45:01 AM

I mean she's a pretty pretty girl, but her face just kinda weirds me out.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:45 AM. Reason : ^in the first one yeah]

11/22/2009 9:45:21 AM

her under-bite reminds me of jesse jane, who i do NOT find attractive

11/22/2009 9:46:36 AM

yeah her face is weird. eyes look crazy cool though

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ^^^dangit]

11/22/2009 9:46:52 AM

that is because they are CGI-Eyes.... CG-EYE if you will...

11/22/2009 9:47:52 AM

they're not THAT shopped.

the colors look a little touched up, but thats about it.

11/22/2009 9:49:12 AM

yeah, i'm sure they're enhanced, but they're real enough to begin with (though i suppose they could be contacts)

11/22/2009 9:53:11 AM

exactly.


I mean... if you consider 34FF boobies to be ok, "because they were real enough A cup breasts to begin with".... then. yea.



[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM. Reason : s]

11/22/2009 9:53:36 AM

yeah.
people would be amazed at how much good lighting does for a picture too.


most people are ready to scream airbrush at something that was a product of good light.



actually some people on this site have done that to my photos.
the unedited ones.


it makes me laff

11/22/2009 9:54:49 AM

Quote :

"(this is joie btw)"

it took me soo long to figure out what that meant

i miss when my brain worked

11/22/2009 9:55:32 AM

i ♥ Joie pictures

11/22/2009 9:56:07 AM

meh they're close enough



[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM. Reason : THEY ARE]

11/22/2009 9:56:17 AM

still not a fan of anything but the eyes

11/22/2009 9:57:02 AM

there's no big difference between using camera/lighting tricks and simply photoshopping. both techniques are used to create the illusion of something that doesn't actually exist. the biggest difference between the two techniques is that one predates the other.

so... if your pics weren't 'shopped, but they used photography tricks, there's no high horse from which u can "laff"

11/22/2009 9:57:06 AM

why are you so bitter?

seriously. i wasn't being mean.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM. Reason : rytgfdygd]

11/22/2009 9:57:57 AM

martina mcbride

11/22/2009 9:58:00 AM

I'm not bitter - just pointing out the obvious.

11/22/2009 9:58:31 AM

Quote :

"both techniques are used to create the illusion of something that doesn't actually exist."

that's arguable...lighting is a variable in the photography process itself, while computer post-processing is not...i think there's a difference, though i see your point

11/22/2009 9:58:39 AM

the difference is that photoshopping wasn't available so they had to create other means of artificially enhancing the beauty of the model

11/22/2009 9:59:48 AM

well it seems like to me you are on a high horse yourself there.


youre being flat out mean

11/22/2009 10:00:02 AM

^^ sort of...lighting is an essential part of taking any picture...without any light, you don't have a picture and as such, it's an integral part of the image...using a computer to change the colors is not

additionally, it takes hella more talent to create good lighting than it does to do basic color modification in photoshop

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason : carats]

11/22/2009 10:01:04 AM

Marty McFly

11/22/2009 10:01:16 AM

^thats what i thought too

11/22/2009 10:02:46 AM

I'd fuck her with a George Bush mask on

11/22/2009 10:05:39 AM

^^^^ I see where you are coming from also... However, surely we can agree that there is a line in there somewhere (whether we can define it or not), and that you can create some pretty heavy-duty illusions with just the camera and, as you said, very expert skills.

Here's an example of a camera trick that should be put into the same bucket as photoshop



I'll leave it to the individual consumer to determine where their threshold for lighting/camera manipulation lies before they consider an effect to be artificial. Personally, if there's a whole chorus of people saying "photoshop" on a certain picture when they know what that person actually looks like, I would lean towards artificial manipulation (whether done through the camera or the computer).


[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:07 AM. Reason : s]

11/22/2009 10:06:30 AM

Quote :

"when they know what that person actually looks like"

this is complicated though.
a lot of people don't look like their pictures.


i've been told over and over again by photographers that i'm not photogenic at all.
my pictures don't look much like me.

11/22/2009 10:10:09 AM

kthx

11/22/2009 10:11:23 AM

there is a difference between altering something and and showing it in a flattering way using light. Light is natural. Saying that good lighting and photoshop are the same thing is like saying a washing a car is the same as repainting it.

11/22/2009 10:12:09 AM

^ perfect analogy

11/22/2009 10:12:35 AM

if you use a blurry lens and soft lighting so that skin imperfections don't get captured, I don't see the practical difference between that and using photoshop to airbrush those imperfections.

sounds like a fear of technology to me.

11/22/2009 10:14:07 AM

Quote :

"if you use a blurry lens and soft lighting so that skin imperfections don't get captured, I don't see the practical difference between that and using photoshop to airbrush those imperfection"

one takes more talent and understanding of light and photography than the other?

also, there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between working with what's there and artificially creating (or removing) content

michaelangelo and a TWW ms painter are "practically" the same thing, but fundamentally, they're not

11/22/2009 10:19:14 AM

i use photoshop. it isn't a fear. do you think glasses are like photoshop? maybe sunglasses? photography is about taking a picture of what you and the camera see. light can be changed, moved redirected but the art of photography is essentially the light that hits the medium. just like painting is the paint that hits the medium. darkroom things like dodging and burning and such... that is like photoshop.

although i agree with quag to a point on his last comment I won't even bring talent into it because I believe it can also take a lot of skill to tastefully alter something in photoshop.

my point is that they are different on the principle of the artform.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM. Reason : jus blaze!]

11/22/2009 10:20:26 AM

I'm going to be honest, but only because this thread is posed as a question.

Hot? An emphatic no. Cute? Possibly. The technical aspects of the photography are well executed, but the subject simply does not possess the physical features to be attractive in these photographs. The one with the hair pulled back really reminds me of one of the aliens in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. In the first photograph, the hair, eyes, and lips work against each other, too much is going on in the facial area.


Some people possess a natural beauty and simply look less attractive the harder they try. This is probably one of those cases.

11/22/2009 10:22:37 AM

Quote :

"one takes more talent and understanding of light and photography than the other? also, there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between working with what's there and artificially creating (or removing) content"

well, in order to photoshop something you have to have a photo... so you are working with what's there.

I also don't necessarily buy the argument that the skill that it takes to create something should be the measure of that thing's worth. Frequently this is the case, but not always. For example, it would take a tremendous amount of skill and craftmanship to recreate a chicken mcnugget in your home kitchen. Does that make it intrinsically better tasting than the mcnugget at McD down the street? no... your home-made nugget probably even tastes worse.

Additionally, you completely discount the skill set that is required to do a high quality photoshop job. Sure, someone can pick it up and create mediocre results, but if you put an old school analog photographer at a computer and asked him to create a HIGH QUALITY photoshop job, he would be just as lost as a photoshopper with a camera.

Different skills, that's it.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM. Reason : s]

11/22/2009 10:25:18 AM

actually you have to have a picture file to photoshop something. it doesn't have to be photo. it can be a cartoon. it could be anything that has pixels really. photoshop's point is to alter pixels. photography's job is to record light.

they are different jobs. I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just saying that they are not the same thing.

11/22/2009 10:31:27 AM

right... well, I agree that they are not the same thing. I wasn't so much trying to say that they were the same thing exactly.

I am trying to say that a trick with the camera is just as much a trick as a trick in photoshop. I would further expand this argument to claim that some modifications in photoshop do not always create an artificial illusion.

It really just depends - like I said, there's a line there. I will call it the "trick line"... People will intuitively know when it has been crossed. They might call it a "myspace angle" or "photoshop" or whatever, doesn't matter if they correctly name the trick that's been performed, they just know they're being tricked.

[Edited on November 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : s]

11/22/2009 10:40:53 AM

Quote :

"she's got a funky face"

11/22/2009 10:50:23 AM

A camera trick makes the viewer think that they see something that isn't real eventhough it is.

a photoshop trick (which is more of a function since that is is main objective) is to change the image into something that has real parts and non real parts.

I mean i see we agree on pretty much everything but something pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

camera trick = making a product that tricks the viewer

photoshop = changing a product to trick the viewer

11/22/2009 10:51:48 AM

Quote :

"camera trick = making a product that tricks the viewer photoshop = changing a product to trick the viewer"

I can agree with this

11/22/2009 10:53:49 AM

RAWR RAWR RAWR

11/22/2009 10:57:26 AM

^ WTF do you know? GTFO.

11/22/2009 11:05:01 AM

ya srsly, this thread is for photoshop and photography experts only

11/22/2009 11:09:11 AM