He's working with multiple exposures - no more than 15 mins each, which makes
for a long and boring night. I was amused by the comments where people are
quite happy to declare that they're faked, on no evidence at all. Enhanced and
stacked, obviously but not necessarily more than that. Remarkable work for a
newbie anyway.
On the subject of Photoshopping - there is a lot of nonsense spoken about it. I
looked through a couple of women's magazines from 1955 the other day - that's
35 years before PS was thought of. Every single image of a female model, in
adverts and features, was 'airbrushed' within an inch of it's life. No pores,
blemishes or flaws of any kind permitted. There was a use of heavy make-up,
clever lighting and literal airbrushing by retouchers to the point where a
painted look was achieved. Given the taste for a wasp-waisted look at the time,
some body reshaping was likely as well though done with savage undergarments, I
suspect.
There's nothing new about PS - it just made it easier.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 31/08/2011, at 9:38 PM, John Hudson wrote:
> I came across these images in one of the UK's on-line newspapers:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3mlkuh2
>
> Question: how much of what one sees on screen is the result of skilled
> photoshopping and other image enhancement techniques?
>
> jh
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|