Camera Labs

I suck... simple like that
But I've seen this guy... and I'm REALLY REALLY impressed

http://www.theveed.com/retouch3.html

Can you get any close to this??

_________________
Canon 40D and lots of lenses.
my Flickr

i think i could, but i think i could make it even better.

_________________
My Picasa

My Flickr

I personally don't like that look.

No-one in the world is flawless, so why should we pretend?

to me, they just look over done and fake. I'm impressed with the skill involved, but i don't like the result.

_________________
No guts, no glory
Canon 5D mk II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM, Canon 24-105 f/4L IS USM, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Sigma 24-60 f/2.8, canon 430EX II, 2x Yongnuo YN560, Cactus v4 triggers

Flickr

To me that's not photography any more. It's way past that into image manipulation. Not saying that's wrong or bad, just that it is now something else.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Nobody is going to hang photos of themselves like this on their wall. They don't even look like the same person after that much editing. I think it's kind of pointless unless you work for a magazine and you need fake people on the cover. I'm not against people photoshopping like this, that would be stupid, but I really see no practical value unless you work for a magazine.

_________________

I'd call this a "Make-up Artist"
Has some applications in model-shooting...

And no, I wouldn't be able to do something like this although I have been doing a retouch / make-up job on a portrait of my wife. Because ya know, wifes and girlfriends are very sensitive when it comes to their looks

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

You might find this photoshop video interesting:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ0adXaY_ ... re=related

*The video requires you to log in and confirm that you are under 18 as the model is scantily clad - but I assure you that nothing is really on show.*

It's certainly not photography anymore but it's an amazing result nonetheless.

Mark

_________________
Canon EOS 40D / EF-S 17-85mm IS / EF 50mm f/1.8 / My Flickr

Hi ,

Interesting and very skillfully done: Whether it's real make-up or digital make-up is almost a philosophical question now, as you may not be able to tell the difference.

Whether we like it or not is of course a different matter. If I were a real make-up artist, I would probably choose a less severe alteration of the model's look - if my personal taste were guiding it. Similarly, I'd probably apply a lot less digitally.

but being able to do it would be cool! Not every photo is "serious" - if I could take a photo of my kids and make them look like zombies with digital make-up, that would be fun! If I could do that to a photo of my wife it would be fun and painful!

Any tool that expands our creative options when it comes to producing images is a tool I welcome.

Cheers

The interesting thing is that make-up professionals have to learn a lot about making someone look good. They know quite a bit about the effects of different shades and colors and the influence of light.
But sometimes I have the impression that the digital "artists" wielding their photoshop healing brush and what have you, not really know what the effect of their work is.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Comparing the two images, I would say they've surface blurred the skin, patched out the underwear, some sharpening to bring out the eyelash details and healing, and finally manually painting in shows and highlights using a tablet.
Yes, I'm oversimplifying it quite a lot, but thats the ideal process in its increments. In my years of using the Adobe suite, I've realized that photos are not photos anymore, just stencils to trace and built on. What is produced has lost its relativity to the state it begun in. To the artist, in my opinion, the romanticism viewing the piece isn't nearly as powerful as the audiences'.

Whoa! at first i didn't get it but then i put my mouse over it and it actually scared me.


No way am i that good!

_________________
Canon 40D + 70-200mm f/2.8L IS + 50mm f/1.8
Manfrotto 055CX3 + 496RC2
www.thomaslowe.com

I'm doing alot of work like this when editing images that are going to be printed in newspapers or magazines. The problem usually is that one has about 5 minutes for a picture. In that hurry some of my colleagues tend to forget to preserve enough detail of the original persons face etc. and the picture becomes more an artwork than an imprint of the person. It helps alot when a picture was taken at f/2.8 or even less so that one does not have to soften too much skin in Photoshop. Well taken pictures usually require hardly any makeover.

It would take me a good 1h to fix such a photo i think. A lot of concentration and going back and forth back and forth. Just to fix what you like.

If you are really interested in this kind of stuff, there is a 40min tutorial i know of and i have linked to it below:

http://vimeo.com/2881612?pg=embed&sec=2881612

Got the time, feel free to take a lok at it you will probably learn something

_________________
My Picasa

My Flickr