Unutterably Silly So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by orlok

What possible reason could you have for doing that in a wedding group .

For example... my son was dancing with his new bride, looking at her. Great lighting, great body positions. But she happened to be looking and talking with her new mother-in-law who was dancing beside them when I snapped the shutter. So I took a sitting bride head shot where she is looking in the correct direction and grafted it onto her dancing body, tipping it up so she is now looking at him. Now the two of them are gazing lovingly into each other's eyes... The finished photo is exactly what is expected for a wedding picture.

In other cases, especially group shots, out of 15 people you can be sure at least one will have their eyes closed. So I find another photo of that one person where their eyes are open, copy and paste (adjusting size and tone) over their closed eyes in the group photo. Voila! Everyone is now looking awake!

It's a matter of taking the best of the best and putting it together so that the final result is exactly what's expected, rather than showing the reality of the moment. No one wants reality in their photos. Not even the elephant.

Do you know the difference between an amateur photographer and a professional photographer? The amateur shows you all the pictures. The pro only shows you the ones that are exactly what you'd expect from a pro. We take five hundred shots to get three or four great ones. A Nat Geo photographer might take five thousand to get twenty 'keepers'... and then the magazine might only use 5-6 of those!

Stitchawl

[orlok]

Makes more sense now - I thought you were transposing heads and bodies of different people...

I do find something slightly off about it though. What you are presenting is not what was actually there at the time. I can understand the artistic and aesthetic merit, and as a work of art, say for a magazine, it is understandable. But as a representation of an actual event, it's a bit weird.

But, as you say, no one wants reality in their photos (particularly me!), and if it keeps eveyone happy... Maybe I just need to wake up to the digital age .

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by orlok

Makes more sense now - I thought you were transposing heads and bodies of different people...

Well, that's always fun to do with group photography too.

I do find something slightly off about it though. What you are presenting is not what was actually there at the time.

Absolutely. And this NEVER should be done with 'reportage photography.' There are MANY different types of photography. Try taking a photo of "mom" and ask her if she wants the result to look just as looks, or as she 'thinks' she looks.

I can understand the artistic and aesthetic merit, and as a work of art, say for a magazine, it is understandable. But as a representation of an actual event, it's a bit weird.

It's the use of 'cosmetics' after the fact. If people wanted to look 'real,' they would never use cosmetics at all. But the fact is, Revlon and Max Factor got rich because people insisted that there was a way to remove wrinkles, change complexion, whiten teeth (until the next cup of coffee...) and cover gray hair. Even men are getting with the program there days. There are plenty of cosmetics made just for men now.

But, as you say, no one wants reality in their photos (particularly me!), and if it keeps eveyone happy... Maybe I just need to wake up to the digital age .

Which do you prefer?



or




This has been going on long before the digital age. It was done in the darkrooms every day. Ansel Adams, one of America's foremost photographers, said that he spent 11 hours in the darkroom for every hour he spent behind the camera. The average person just never knew it was being done. We'd hear the term 'airbrushed' and think this was something that was 'occasionally' done to only 'Playboy' models. Nope...

Today our darkroom is the computer and what used to take 60 minutes before is finished in 5 seconds now. If we make a mistake, we can just hit the 'undo' key and start again. No wasted hours waiting for developers, fixers, etc. Most of the tools in 'PhotoShop' are the same ones we used in the darkroom, only faster and easier.


Stitchawl

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

It's the use of 'cosmetics' after the fact. If people wanted to look 'real,' they would never use cosmetics at all. But the fact is, Revlon and Max Factor got rich because people insisted that there was a way to remove wrinkles, change complexion, whiten teeth (until the next cup of coffee...) and cover gray hair. Even men are getting with the program there days. There are plenty of cosmetics made just for men now.

Fair comment.

I touched up a pic of myself recently, before I sent it to my Mother, and I still feel a bit ashamed of doing that. Maybe I need to start wearing makeup, and get with the program .

And regarding the pictures, I can clearly see the benefit of the "touch-up", but I'd gladly give extraneous parts of my body for either...

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by orlok

Fair comment.
I touched up a pic of myself recently, before I sent it to my Mother, and I still feel a bit ashamed of doing that. Maybe I need to start wearing makeup, and get with the program .

I'd be willing to bet that you have NOT seen a photo that HASN'T been touched up in any magazine in the past five years, and in any MAJOR magazine in the past ten! Running an image through PhotoShop is just one of the parts of the post-production work flow all images go through before publication.

And regarding the pictures, I can clearly see the benefit of the "touch-up", but I'd gladly give extraneous parts of my body for either...

It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it.

I confess there are times that I wish I WASN'T shooting travel, nature, and wildlife...


Stitchawl

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Which do you prefer?

Can I have them both?

[Rumpelteazer]

Just ordered my new computer. I don't expect it to be ready this week since they had a lot of computers in that needed upgrading or reinstalling (start of the school year) but I'm hoping I can pick it up some time next week.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by beppe

Can I have them both?

Certainly, my friend. Just bring me a 'permission' paper from your wife saying that she will be understanding about your having a 23 year old Thai girl coming to visit...


Stitchawl

[wannabee]

In 1993 when I had to take some property pics for an advert, the site manager yelled for everyone to stop what they where doing and clean up the site.
I said don't worry about it I'll clean it up when I got back to the studio and lay a new lawn over the dirt perimeter in the process. They didn't know what in was talking about.
It was fairies at the bottom of the garden. But so much easier.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by wannabee

In 1993 when I had to take some property pics for an advert, the site manager yelled for everyone to stop what they where doing and clean up the site.
I said don't worry about it I'll clean it up when I got back to the studio and lay a new lawn over the dirt perimeter in the process. They didn't know what in was talking about.
It was fairies at the bottom of the garden. But so much easier.

Advertising photography should be controlled by law...
A glass of 'milk' is really a glass of white glue.
Strawberries do NOT float in milk, so that they are half in/half out of the bowl of cereal. It's the layer of modeling clay holding them up under the white glue milk, with the strawberries pressed half way in and a few Cheerios sprinkled on top...
Big Mac really only look that good in pictures for a reason... they are plastic models as is much of the food photographed.
Flowers get sprayed with glycerin to make them look freshly 'watered.' Water would dry too quickly, and certainly not make those big fat droplets that look so good in close-up!

The list goes on!

Stitchawl

[orlok]

^ all my illusions shattered... I'll never look at a glass of milk in the same way again.

[FlorenceArt]

Years ago, I heard about a guy who was making a living preparing and photographing food for recipe books. Except that the food was so much "prepared" that you couldn't eat it after taking the photo, you just had to throw it all away. What a disappointment!

[SandyHarper]

Just brushed my teeth and posting this message now.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Well, that's always fun to do with group photography too.



Absolutely. And this NEVER should be done with 'reportage photography.' There are MANY different types of photography. Try taking a photo of "mom" and ask her if she wants the result to look just as looks, or as she 'thinks' she looks.



It's the use of 'cosmetics' after the fact. If people wanted to look 'real,' they would never use cosmetics at all. But the fact is, Revlon and Max Factor got rich because people insisted that there was a way to remove wrinkles, change complexion, whiten teeth (until the next cup of coffee...) and cover gray hair. Even men are getting with the program there days. There are plenty of cosmetics made just for men now.



Which do you prefer?



or




This has been going on long before the digital age. It was done in the darkrooms every day. Ansel Adams, one of America's foremost photographers, said that he spent 11 hours in the darkroom for every hour he spent behind the camera. The average person just never knew it was being done. We'd hear the term 'airbrushed' and think this was something that was 'occasionally' done to only 'Playboy' models. Nope...

Today our darkroom is the computer and what used to take 60 minutes before is finished in 5 seconds now. If we make a mistake, we can just hit the 'undo' key and start again. No wasted hours waiting for developers, fixers, etc. Most of the tools in 'PhotoShop' are the same ones we used in the darkroom, only faster and easier.


Stitchawl

I'm thinking I should send you my wedding pictures. They are truly...well...bad. Not entirely the photographer's fault either - he was doing the job for free as a favor for a friend (and the friend wasn't me!) Plus I just don't take good pictures, I never have.

Okay, I see that needs rephrasing: I don't photograph well.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

Okay, I see that needs rephrasing: I don't photograph well.

99% of us don't, and I guess that's just what Stitchalw has been saying all along.

Like to know what manipulation software is being used there.