Visit the Cellar!

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

 
What's IotD?

The interesting, amazing, or mind-boggling images of our days.

IotD Stuff

ARCHIVES - over 13 years of IotD!
About IotD
RSS2
XML

Permalink Latest Image

Mar 25th, 2017: White Whale

Recent Images

Mar 24th, 2017: Propaganda Posters
Mar 23rd, 2017: Bubbles
Mar 22nd, 2017: Reindeer Can Fly
Mar 21st, 2017: The Meeting
Mar 20th, 2017: Hellé Nice
Mar 19th, 2017: Rabbit Hole
Mar 18th, 2017: Evidence

The CELLAR Tip Mug
Some folks who have noticed IotD

Neatorama
Worth1000
Mental Floss
Boing Boing
Switched
W3streams
GruntDoc's Blog
No Quarters
Making Light
darrenbarefoot.com
GromBlog
b3ta
Church of the Whale Penis
UniqueDaily.com
Sailor Coruscant
Projectionist

Link to us and we will try to find you after many months!

Common image haunts

Astro Pic of the Day
Earth Sci Pic of the Day
We Make Money Not Art
Spluch
ochevidec.net
Strange New Products
Geisha Asobi Blog
Cute animals blog (in Russian)
20minutos.es
Yahoo Most Emailed

Please avoid copyrighted images (or get permission) when posting!

Advertising

Philadelphia Pawn Shop
The best real estate agent in Montgomery County
The best T.38 Fax provider
Epps Beverages and Beer, Limerick, PA
Sal's Pizza, Elkins Park
Burholme Auto Body, Philadelphia
Coles Tobacco, Pottstown
ERM Auto Service, Glenside
Glenside Collision
Moorehead Catering, Trappe
Salon 153, Bala
Dominicks Auto Body, Phoenixville

   Undertoad  Tuesday Aug 12 12:55 PM

8/12/2003: Talented digital airbrushing



How much of what you see every day is fake?

Are you sure? Maybe you should visit the digital portfolio of Greg Apodaca, a remarkably talented digital retoucher.

Mr. Apodaca has thoughtfully provided both the original images and his work on them. When you mouse over the retouched photos, you see the originals. And because his work is so good, the effect is very striking indeed.

You feel like you're getting a profound They Live-style window on reality, which my before-after halves are only a hint at. This is one link worth waiting for the load time - especially on the female models. The work answers some of the questions we've all had... and asks so many more. (For example: how can we possibly live up to body images that even models don't really have?)



dave  Tuesday Aug 12 12:58 PM

I hate to say it, but... you can do this kind of stuff with iPhoto in about 20 seconds.

Technology is amazing.



dave  Tuesday Aug 12 01:00 PM

(I don't mean to say that his work isn't good or deserving of attention, because it is. But you can do this too! Or damn close to it.)



hot_pastrami  Tuesday Aug 12 02:17 PM

Dave's right... I have done much of this type of retouching for friends, it is surprisingly easy. Some heavy detail work can take a lot of time, but if one has the patience, the results can be very nice, indeed.



tandr  Tuesday Aug 12 02:36 PM

emm... can this guy retouch me for 10-20 kilos somehow ?



Annebonannie  Tuesday Aug 12 07:29 PM

This fella really does do excellent work. I looked at his site, and if you think this kind of retouch only takes 20 minutes or so with only amature software you're totally mistaken, but then again, maybe you didn't look at the website.

I do a very limited level of retouch in my newspaper work, mostly color and tone correction and VERY limited actual photo alteration (such as removing a drink from someone's hand). We limit the level of alteration because as a newspaper there are some grey areas regarding how ethical it is to overedit photos, although I have been known to suddenly enact a miracle cure for acne.

But for my advertising work there is practically no constraint on how you manipulate the photos to enhance the product. Rarely have I ever had a client need me to go so far on any of their photos, but I can if need be. Because I know HOW it's done, I know what level of skill goes into creating the finished products he shows on his website.

It's a case here of it looking easy, because this relatively low resolution example of the work does not show the real detail or the steps it took to accomplish it. If you check out the website you can see on some examples of where several photos are combined seamlessly, the layering, multi-pass filters. (Although I was, honestly, unimpressed with the example of the exterior of the casino.) It takes a professional using professional software to get the results he has in his showcase.



Annebonannie  Tuesday Aug 12 07:39 PM

I didn't address the intent of the original post. You should simply accept that every magazine cover you see anywhere is utter and pure fantasy. There is a very good reason you don't run into those perfect faces and heavenly bodies, and it's not because they don't live in some other country somewhere where they only eat celery and boiled skinless chicken, it's because they don't exist.

Not even National Geographic is immune. Not too long ago there was a bit of a happening over the fact that the artist(s) at National Geographic "moved" the pyramids to a more "pleasing" locale.

Plus it just ticks me off to read one headline on a magazine: Lose 10 lbs in 20 days! and directly below it a recipe for fudgy apple caramel tidbits. Gee, no mixed messages there!



dave  Tuesday Aug 12 08:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Annebonannie
This fella really does do excellent work. I looked at his site, and if you think this kind of retouch only takes 20 minutes or so with only amature software you're totally mistaken, but then again, maybe you didn't look at the website.
I looked at his website, and I stand by what I said. Perhaps you should investigate the software I'm mentioning and spend some time using it before you make demonstrably false statements.


Annebonannie  Tuesday Aug 12 08:26 PM

Go ahead, "demonstrate" away. Let me know when you are starting, and twenty seconds later we'll look at the results.

Verify your statements, if you are capable of doing so.



dave  Tuesday Aug 12 08:42 PM

You mentioned twenty minutes. Either amount of time is enough for some pretty serious work.

Post a picture of a kid with bad acne and I'll show you what I can do with it in 20 seconds.



Annebonannie  Tuesday Aug 12 08:50 PM

You can do what this guy does with iPhoto and 20 seconds? It's not just airbrushing some acne, Dave. How many elements do you think were altered from the original photo, and not just the smoothing on the skin texture?

You remind me of those folks who think their Microsoft Word and Powerpoint are interchangable with Adobe Illustrator.

What about her hands, for pete's sake...

heck, I think you're just trying to get me going, and chuckling c'ause you got me all "het up"



xoxoxoBruce  Tuesday Aug 12 10:22 PM

The family of 4 with the big noses. Turning that guys head is a pretty good trick.



juju  Tuesday Aug 12 11:24 PM

I've heard that Dave can even make the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs.



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 01:25 AM

Wow. You are one amazingly capable reader.

Here's what I said. I'll highlight some of the important words which I use to modify the meaning of other words.

"you can do <b>this kind of stuff</b> with iPhoto in about 20 seconds."

I didn't indicate that one could make an exact replica of his hard work with iPhoto in 20 seconds.

I went on to say the following:

"I don't mean to say that his work isn't good or deserving of attention, because it is. But you can do this too! <b>Or damn close to it.</b>"

Now, I have been doing graphics work on and off for approximately eight years. I have spent time tweaking at the pixel level to get stuff just right. All told, I have spent at least a good five minutes doing graphics, and based upon that experience, I'm going to take you to task.

Doing that work in Photoshop is astoundingly tedious, though not particularly difficult in any technical sense. The hard part is having the patience to do it well. Of course, having a strong knowledge of facial composition (or that of whatever you may be working on) is invaluable. But that's Photoshop. Drawing a mountain surrounded by water in Photoshop is no easy task either, and yet I can crank out a sharp looking mountain in the middle of a lake in about four seconds plus render time (probably about 1-2 minutes in 1024x768 on my dual 1.42GHz Power Mac). Photoshop, it's a tough job. Bryce 3D, it's no sweat. Apples and oranges.

Which is how we get to where we are. I very specifically placed a condition on my assertion by stating "with iPhoto". iPhoto 2 was released in January 2003 and with it came a tool aptly titled "Retouch Tool". Its algorithm and inner workings are, of course, Apple Proprietary, but the effect is that I can do that same kind of stuff in a much shorter time frame. Your contention is that I am ignorant of his work and, perhaps, digital manipulation of images. My contention, of course, is that you have no fucking clue whether or not I know what I'm talking about and, like a fucking asshole, didn't bother to ask.

Quote:
You remind me of those folks who think their Microsoft Word and Powerpoint are interchangable with Adobe Illustrator.
Now here's my favorite part, because you are implying my ignorance without having the faintest idea of whether or not I qualify. I may be an asshole, and I may have an ego, but when it comes to what I do, I know my shit. <b>You</b> remind me of someone who just learned how to copy and paste and now think you're some sort of überhacker that knows everything. You deal with people not as smart as you on a regular basis, so you assume everyone isn't as smart as you. Guess what? I've forgotten more than you'll ever know when it comes to Word and Powerpoint and Illustrator. Wanna know how I know? Because people that <b>are</b> that knowledgeable don't act the way you do. How long ago did you start on a computer? How much time a day do you spend on them? What's your job? Are you currently supporting a multimillion dollar contract with a government customer that relies on your computer expertise in a number of separate but related fields? If you want to talk down to me, how about you pick something I know nothing about, like gardening. You can feel good about yourself all fucking day knowing that you know how to plant turnips and I have no fucking idea how its done. But the moment you open your fucking mouth in the manner you did earlier, you're demonstrating that a) you <b>don't</b> know your shit (because it's such a lame fucking example, and if you had any idea whatsoever, you would have used a better one) and b) you need to be schooled.

So we arrive at our final paragraph, which is this, Ms. Omniscient. Demonstrate that it is <b>impossible</b> to do his work in 20 minutes (or something damn close in 20 seconds), or acknowledge that maybe some people have more experience in certain areas that you do and <b>shut the fuck up</b>.


juju  Wednesday Aug 13 05:21 AM

Yeah, right. Prove a negative? That's real scientific.

Why does it bother you so much that she questioned your abilities? Couldn't you have just said all that in a nice way and not have felt so threatened? Is a simple misunderstanding really worth all that vitrol?



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 13 05:21 AM

Welcome Annebonannie, you have now officially arrived.

Quote:
Plus it just ticks me off to read one headline on a magazine: Lose 10 lbs in 20 days! and directly below it a recipe for fudgy apple caramel tidbits. Gee, no mixed messages there!
That's part of the plan to separate the ones that are serious.


sniglet  Wednesday Aug 13 08:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
Yeah, right. Prove a negative? That's real scientific.

Why does it bother you so much that she questioned your abilities? Couldn't you have just said all that in a nice way and not have felt so threatened? Is a simple misunderstanding really worth all that vitrol?
Shh, Juju, don't patronise the boy. He's fun to watch.

Ontopic: Most technology that has ANY potential entertainment value has been sucked up in the Pr0n industry so fast you can hear the sonic boom....all except HDTV.

The problem with HDTV is that there's SO MUCH detail that all of these amazingly good looking, shaved, perfect bodied actors...um..aren't amazingly good looking, shaved, OR perfect bodied.

I begin to wonder (in the human based photos above) at what point it's still a picture of a person...if EVERY pixel is smoothed, highlighted or altered, it's no longer a photo, it's a piece of artwork _derived_ from a photo.


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 13 08:57 AM

Quote:
I begin to wonder (in the human based photos above) at what point it's still a picture of a person...if EVERY pixel is smoothed, highlighted or altered, it's no longer a photo, it's a piece of artwork _derived_ from a photo.
Nothing in media is real. Half the things in the news are suspect.

aside- I checked out your homepage. OMG, can I relate to the sled project, Bwahahahaha.


dave  Wednesday Aug 13 09:53 AM

Quote:
Why does it bother you so much that she questioned your abilities? Couldn't you have just said all that in a nice way and not have felt so threatened? Is a simple misunderstanding really worth all that vitrol?
Are you really worth responding to? How's that pizza going?

I'm sure everyone here has forgotten your outbursts when you miss a meal. Do me a favor and kindly eat my ass. I'll spend my time how I like it, and if that includes taking issue with a rudely phrased and incorrect remark, then that's what I'll do.


chrisinhouston  Wednesday Aug 13 10:54 AM

I've been a professional shooter for 23 years so the shoe or the girl's face I can understand because in advertising we get product or people that need retouching and even building a photo like the horses in front of the meadow, sometimes you just can't find what you want for a shot. But the one that gets me is http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/tv/index.html
the one of the digital TV. Was the photographer too lazy to hang the pictures on the wall and move in the furniture? When you look at the history they had to shoot the table and chairs and the other furnishings.

After all my years in this business the biggest turnoff is when an Art Director says "Don't worry about it, we'll fix it in Photoshop".



Angelus  Wednesday Aug 13 11:19 AM

Quote:
Why does it bother you so much that she questioned your abilities? Couldn't you have just said all that in a nice way and not have felt so threatened? Is a simple misunderstanding really worth all that vitrol?
I take it Dave has again spouted something really insane, with a lot of consescension. How strange. I really wouldn't know, because I put him on my Ignore List a long time ago.

I have found that the Cellar is many orders of magnitude more pleasant without listening to boors like him.


juju  Wednesday Aug 13 11:21 AM

Hmm.. perhaps you misread me. I'm not saying, "You need to be this way." I try not to be presumptuous like that. I'm just asking why you are the way you are. I'm simply curious as to the answers to my previous questions.

But of course you are free to not say.



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 11:45 AM

My apologies. The lack of intonation and other various attributes of physical communication are lost in this medium and I interpreted your comment as a rude challenge.

I responded the way I did because I felt her comments were rude and incorrect. I made a statement in which I used qualifiers to clarify what I meant. I further clarified in the later post by basically stating that although is work is very good, regular people can pull off astounding editing feats in very little time using current software. If you read everything together, the conveyed meaning is essentially "This is really cool! But even cooler is that programs have advanced sufficiently that you can do this sort of thing too, and it doesn't even take long!"

Her response was basically "you are wrong". Which I'm not, because I've done everything I claim to be possible. And iPhoto happens to make a single person capable of some <b>very</b> impressive photo editing in a very short time. That's all I was saying. And her response is essentially "Obviously you don't know what you're talking about."

You should get what you give. Over the past few years, I have toned down my posting in a serious manner to make the Cellar a more friendly community. I have worked to defuse situations instead of just jumping in and pouring gasoline on the fire. But then something like this happens, where it's my contention that someone needs a lesson in manners. Not only is she sorely mistaken about the state of graphics editing applications, but she doesn't even present this opinion in a civilized manner. At that point, when she is basically calling me ignorant and/or a liar, I feel absolutely no need to remain civil. Why waste my time when her response is going to be "You remind me of..." ?



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 11:51 AM

My favorite thing about Angelus (who won't read this, and that's OK!) is that 15% of his posts are dedicated to telling people I'm on his ignore list. He posts like what, once every year? And it's "Dave is such a boner. I am glad I ignore him, because he is a boner. What a boner. The Cellar is better without this boner. Because he is a boner, I ignore him. I ignore all boners. That boner."

I also enjoy the use of the word "insane", because this makes me think of the word "crazy", and I can't hear that word without hearing Steve Martin go "We are two wwwwwwwild and craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy guys!"

Thank you, Angelus, for brightening my day.



ndetroit  Wednesday Aug 13 12:52 PM

I think he/she actually said "boor", not "boner", dave ....



wolf  Wednesday Aug 13 01:59 PM

I think Dave just like saying "boner."



Uryoces  Wednesday Aug 13 02:05 PM

The Alaskan King boner can grow to enormous size, though. I'll have to take a look at what i-Photo can do. Ever since I found the Gimp for Win32, I gave up on Photoshop 'cause all I had was a pirated copy, and I'm not doing anything particulary intensive with it.



Undertoad  Wednesday Aug 13 02:15 PM

Why didn't anyone just take Dave up on his offer?

Dave, you have 20 seconds... retouch this photo.




dave  Wednesday Aug 13 02:21 PM

When my Power Mac starts booting, I will. (I believe the hard drive died Saturday and I have been too busy to look at it.)



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 02:22 PM

(As far as that actual photo, any lawyer wish to inform me on the legality of me retouching it and posting it? I don't want someone to send the guy an email going 'Look at what this boner did to your picture! Ahahahahaha!' and me getting an angry letter from his lawyer.)



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 02:23 PM

Oh yeah, and here's what you can expect in 20 seconds of work: I will make the photo look lighter and more natural, and her complexion will be cleaned waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up. (I could probably actually do it in 15. I'll make sure to clock it when I do it.)



Undertoad  Wednesday Aug 13 02:41 PM

On the legality concerns, anything you do will be less liable than I am in copying the images for posting here.



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 02:44 PM

Yes, but I would be more concerned with someone mucking up my images than I would be with someone mirroring them and giving proper credit. So the guy modifying the images makes a more appealing target.



Undertoad  Wednesday Aug 13 02:55 PM

Yeah, and it's illegal to cut across someone else's lawn too, but if you're half the bad-ass you sound like, you'll take the risk I've taken almost every single day for the last three years.



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 03:04 PM

I don't cut across lawns either.

I don't mind doing something illegal; I simply don't want to get caught. And I'm in a position where it's extremely easy to contact the presumable owner of the original image and get him on my ass.

But whatever. I'll post it with a disclaimer, and we'll see how it goes.



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 13 06:10 PM

Gee whilikers, Davey. Don't get upset. All she did was question you're ability, integrity and truthfulness. Not like it was personal.



hot_pastrami  Wednesday Aug 13 06:14 PM

Prediction: the next post will read "It's 'your', you old fart."



SteveDallas  Wednesday Aug 13 06:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
Yeah, and it's illegal to cut across someone else's lawn too, but if you're half the bad-ass you sound like, you'll take the risk I've taken almost every single day for the last three years.
Umm.... on foot? or with a vehicle?


xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 13 06:25 PM

You lose Hot, but only because he hasn't seen it yet. Heh, heh, heh.
Fire for AFFECT.



Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 06:41 PM

So much for the friendly little coffee shop thing.

I really don't think I warranted that response, and I was not trying to make you feel ignorant or put you down. I'm a professional graphic artist. I started when I was nineteen, and it's all I have ever done (Except for waitressing in college). Nothing I said was intended as an insult to you or your abilities, and your namecalling and insults were way over the line. I may just be some typing on a screen to you, but I am a human being on the other end of all the wires.

That was just flat out ugly.



dave  Wednesday Aug 13 06:51 PM

That's the POINT. Whether or not you intended it, your comments came off to me as insulting and essentially calling me a liar and/or ignorant of what we are talking. As I explained in my post to juju, that type of behavior will simply get the same type back.

If you didn't mean to convey those things, then I recommend you read a book or two on communication and perhaps focus especially on that which is written. I don't get tone of voice, inflection, volume, a smile, etc when I'm reading your words. I get the words themselves. Maybe people should start picking them more wisely.



ndetroit  Wednesday Aug 13 06:55 PM

Less talk, more airbrushing, imo!



Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 06:59 PM

I'd like to see it too.



Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 08:02 PM

I'll even go first



Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 08:04 PM

I'll give you a cutaway, too, for contrast.

It is nowhere near as good as the artist's original, I know. But I did it down, dirty and quick.



juju  Wednesday Aug 13 09:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
I responded the way I did because I felt her comments were rude and incorrect.

[...]

Her response was basically "you are wrong". Which I'm not, because I've done everything I claim to be possible.

You should get what you give.

[...]

But then something like this happens, where it's my contention that someone needs a lesson in manners. Not only is she sorely mistaken about the state of graphics editing applications, but she doesn't even present this opinion in a civilized manner. At that point, when she is basically calling me ignorant and/or a liar, I feel absolutely no need to remain civil.

[...]

That's the POINT. Whether or not you intended it, your comments came off to me as insulting and essentially calling me a liar and/or ignorant of what we are talking. As I explained in my post to juju, that type of behavior will simply get the same type back.
So, are you saying that you feel it's extremely rude and offensive for someone who doesn't know you to tell you that you're wrong? And you feel like your response was of equal rudeness to hers?

Like I said, I'm not challenging in any way, I just am genuinly curious as to the answers.


bmgb  Wednesday Aug 13 10:09 PM

Here's my quick and dirty attempt. (Photoshop <2 mins.) I made her look pretty fake. It would take a lot of time to rid her of blemishes while still retaining the little subtleties that make her look "real."



Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 10:33 PM

I love your quote, bmgb!

What steps did you use on your image?



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Aug 13 11:09 PM

I'd hit it.



juju  Wednesday Aug 13 11:19 PM

Yeah, but what do you think her price point is?



bmgb  Wednesday Aug 13 11:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Annebonannie
I love your quote, bmgb!

What steps did you use on your image?
The quote is an old favorite of mine.

I used the "smart blur" on the photo a couple times. Then I took the blur tool and blurred out the very few little pitted areas that were left.


Annebonannie  Wednesday Aug 13 11:39 PM

I guessed wrong. I was thinking that you had used gaussian blur then unsharp mask.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
When my Power Mac starts booting, I will. (I believe the hard drive died Saturday and I have been too busy to look at it.)
That'd be the motherboard, Bob. They estimate 2 weeks repair. So hold your horses.


dave  Thursday Aug 14 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
So, are you saying that you feel it's extremely rude and offensive for someone who doesn't know you to tell you that you're wrong? And you feel like your response was of equal rudeness to hers?
I've been over this. I intentionally used qualifiers to clarify what I meant. She implied I was lying and/or ignorant of photo manipulation without bothering to ask what my qualifications were (or whether or not iPhoto could actually do that). It is typical of a "better than you" attitude that is prevalent online. When I see it, and I am capable of acting in the same manner, I do.

My response was undoubtedly more rude than hers. This is called <b>escalation</b>. My first two posts on the thread weren't rude at all; then she escalated, and I further escalated. It's kinda like, when you're standing there, minding your business, and some asshole punches you in the face. So you punch them back, even harder, hoping to get them thinking "Hey, being an asshole to this asshole isn't really worth my time."


juju  Thursday Aug 14 01:16 AM

I see. So you're being mean in order to convince people to be nice to you.

This may sound like an odd comment, but I really do find that to be a fascinating interpersonal strategy. And I don't mean that sarcastically at all.



hairdog  Thursday Aug 14 08:00 AM

Why can't we all just get along?



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 08:11 AM

Too bad about your motherboard dave, convenient for you too.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 09:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Annebonannie
Too bad about your motherboard dave, convenient for you too.
Pretty inconvenient, actually, since I do just about everything on that machine. It started acting up on Friday and totally went out on Sunday. (And I even have two eye-witnesses!)


Tobiasly  Thursday Aug 14 10:12 AM

Annie, I'm sure you can do much better without the 20 second constraint, but you made that chick look like Michael Jackson!

And this retouching guy may be a digital photo whiz, but a web designer he ain't. Good God, I can't possibly think of a more annoying background image than that on his homepage.

And animated backgrounds are just plain evil, folks.



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 10:26 AM

OMG! You're right!

I'm used to working in newsprint and compensating for a minimum of 25% press gain, but still it's no excuse for making the poor woman look like the "King of Plop"

(I also thought she ended up a little like Delta Burke, personally, but "overdoing" things is one of my weaknesses.)



Beletseri  Thursday Aug 14 11:45 AM

No automated program is going to keep her eyelashes in place or keep the bits of whisps of hair on her brow. That takes hand work and detail. I think that guy is good and I've done a lot of photoshopping in my time.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 12:42 PM

It's not exactly automated. It's just smarter than the rest.

I agree that he's good. My whole point is that you don't need to be a wizard to make your photos look better.



Beletseri  Thursday Aug 14 01:56 PM

I think we are all waiting for your version Dave.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 01:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dave
When my Power Mac starts booting, I will. (I believe the hard drive died Saturday and I have been too busy to look at it.)



dave  Thursday Aug 14 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I see. So you're being mean in order to convince people to be nice to you.
Not quite. I am rude to demonstrate to people how un-fun it is when someone's an asshole to you, and to give the impression that it's not worth their time to be an asshole to me because of my capability of being a bigger asshole to them.


juju  Thursday Aug 14 02:15 PM

Isn't that what I just said?



dave  Thursday Aug 14 02:19 PM

No. You said "be nice", which is decidedly different. Angelus isn't nice to me. He ignores me. And that's okay. I don't mind.

Indifference is fine. People that are nice to me are fine too. But if you want to be an asshole, then I do too. That's all.



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 02:19 PM

You didn't manage to prove your point that you could retouch a photo "something like that" in twenty minutes (or seconds), but you sure did manage to prove who the bigger asshole is.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 02:22 PM

I don't believe that was ever in contention, you babbling retard.



juju  Thursday Aug 14 02:31 PM

So, do you act the same way in real life discussions?



dave  Thursday Aug 14 02:34 PM

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooh yeah. You would be surprised. (It strains relationships, but it usually gets the point across.) What you see here is what you get. I'm no different when I'm not at a computer.

I find it happens less frequently in real life, however, because others are far less rude. But when they are, I'm on them as quick as I am here.



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 02:39 PM

You might want to stretch and breathe deeply, relax and think about butterflies and kittens, or maybe take a break and eat some friut or something cause I think your gonna bust a vein. You get worked up too easy.

It's really hard to take you seriously. I think it is because you have to fall back on big words, vulgar langauage and namecalling.



juju  Thursday Aug 14 02:57 PM

I think what she means is that up to a certain point, most people just don't let such slights bother them.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 03:08 PM

Again, you're ignorant of me. I don't get worked up. I'm calm as can be when I write these things. The only person that could get me worked up is (thankfully) gone.

(FYI, "your" implies ownership, whereas "you're" is what you're looking for - a contraction of "you" and "are". So where I might want to take a break, you might want to go to school.)



dave  Thursday Aug 14 03:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
I think what she means is that up to a certain point, most people just don't let such slights bother them.
And these people are, of course, <b>enablers</b>. Sure, you can act like an asshole for no reason! People love it when you unreasonably question their integrity!


dave  Thursday Aug 14 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Annebonannie
It's really hard to take you seriously. I think it is because you have to fall back on big words, vulgar langauage and namecalling.
Translation: "I can't take you seriously because I am a dumb hick from Tennessee and I don't understand the big words you use. Being in the Bible Belt, I know that curse words are bad, though, so I will assume the worst of you."


juju  Thursday Aug 14 03:17 PM

Well, for my hypothetical "most people", if it doesn't bother them then they have no vested interest in stopping it, do they?



dave  Thursday Aug 14 03:31 PM

Perhaps not at the onset. The behavior grows worse, however, which is what I was going to write up but decided against it. I'm busy at work so I'm not going to waste any more time here (unless it's responding to Anne, who I just couldn't stand to let have the last word).



hot_pastrami  Thursday Aug 14 04:19 PM

I decided to give it a try, I've had some light experince with this stuff. Below is the result of about 25 minutes worth of work in Paint Shop Pro 8. I intentionally left a little bit of texture and detail in an effort to keep her looking more like a human than a doll. And it's hard to tell with the half-and-half layout, but I narrowed her jaw a little, and her nose. I also very slightly adjusted an eye position.

Sure, it's not quite up to the original artist's standards, but I think I am getting pretty close, particularly for an ameteur using cheap software, and in only 25 minutes. My point? Dave was right... it is amazing how much an untrained person can accomplish in photo retouching with powerful software. And Paint Shop Pro isn't even as good as iPhoto at this stuff.

By the way, pointing out that Dave is an asshole like pinching a loaf in the bathtub... it's a meaningless, unimpressive waste of energy and in the end you just end up getting shit all over yourself.



ndetroit  Thursday Aug 14 04:52 PM

When everyone has finished with their renditions of this poor woman's face, it would be neat to see them all side by side, along with explanations of how the effects were achieved (and why you made those particular choices).

I think that this guys site is one of the most amazing I've ever seen.. The one pic of the blond girl is incredible: You see the first pic, and she looks like a "normal" magazine-type girl.. If you weren't specificly looking for it, you wouldn't think that she'd been airbrushed, or really that anything had been done to her appearance.
Then you mouse-over it, and the real her looks *HIDEOUS* in comparison.

But only in comparison.

Because I bet that if you saw the "real" her first, you would think she is a pretty good-looking person, and if you saw her in the street, you might even look twice.

At least.. that's how it appeared to me.


One other question.. did any of you touch the pupils in your photographs? I had always heard that larger (bigger black parts) pupils were considered "more attractive" (pupils are dilated, which is a natural effect of sexual arousal) than small pupils..

But when I look at the close-up details of a lot of the eyes on that guys site, he has made them smaller..

hmmm.



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 05:40 PM

I altered her eyes, not deliberately increasing her pupil, but just fiddling with the contrast and hue. I like blue eyes.

Quote:
Dave was right... it is amazing how much an untrained person can accomplish in photo retouching with powerful software.
I think you did a really good job, better even than a couple of the folks I work with would who are paid to know how to do photo work.

The whole thing was just a miscommunication, really. Just a face is easy to touch up, and in fact I proved Dave's point for him by retouching the face myself (although I did use photoshop, because it's what I am used to). I read his comments:

Quote:
I hate to say it, but... you can do this kind of stuff with iPhoto in about 20 seconds.
to mean that he, or anyone else could have done the same or closely comparable quality of work to the entire photo in twenty seconds (which somehow got turned into 20 minutes somewhere in the thread), her body, the retouch, recontouring her hands, everything. Turns out that's not exactly what he meant, but it's what I took it for. I had begun my response before he had even added his next entry to the thread qualifying his first remark.

As to the argument, that's just part of the fun. You'll never have an opinion without someone disagreeing, even violently sometimes. With someone as short fused as Dave you just have to roll with it sometimes, and I was getting tickled fantisizing about him getting spittle-flecking mad.

Got to go now and fry up a mess of possum and okra for Cletus and the twins...


juju  Thursday Aug 14 05:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hot_pastrami
By the way, pointing out that Dave is an asshole like pinching a loaf in the bathtub... it's a meaningless, unimpressive waste of energy and in the end you just end up getting shit all over yourself.
The only person who said that was Anne, and she's new, so she can hardly be expected to have already formed an opinion about him.


dave  Thursday Aug 14 05:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Annebonannie
...if you think this kind of retouch only takes 20 minutes...
That's where it came from.

Not to further be an asshole, but I take issue with your claim that you started your response before I had clarified. The time between your post and my second is like six hours.

Quote:
Originally posted by The Doninator
The only person who said that was Anne, and she's new, so she can hardly be expected to have already formed an opinion about him.
To be fair, I said it too.


dave  Thursday Aug 14 05:59 PM

Hey, if you read what I said how she interpreted it, my claims sound pretty bogus!

But if you read it how I meant it (i.e., just the face, which is what was posted here), then I still stand by 'em.

So I have an idea. I will apologize for dragging this out so long, and Anne will promise to, in the future, ask for clarification before she starts acting like a big meanie.



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 06:00 PM

It was a time warp, I swear.



dave  Thursday Aug 14 06:01 PM

Can you time warp us to like 7 PM, so I can get the fuck outta here and go home?



Annebonannie  Thursday Aug 14 06:06 PM

You don't need to apologize, I thought at least half of what you said was toung-in-cheek and just to keep me going.

It sounds perverse, maybe, but I really have enjoyed participating in this thead and sparring with you. It's made me feel like I belong.

If I could, I'd warp us all the way to Friday afternoon.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Aug 14 07:57 PM

Shit, you guy are spoiling everything.
Never fails, good shoot-um-up gets going and they start kissin' and stuff.
I'm goin' for popcorn.



zeet  Thursday Aug 14 09:36 PM

Couldn't resist.

I had to take my shot at it. Mind you, I spent 10 minutes on this, so there is that. But still, it was fun, playing with it to see what would be overboard and what wouldn't.



DNK  Friday Aug 15 02:54 PM

I wanted a go at it...

So here tis. Corel PHOTO-PAINT 7. Very quick stab. Under 10 minutes. How'd I do?



DNK  Friday Aug 15 02:57 PM

Re: I wanted a go at it...

Quote:
Originally posted by DNK
So here tis. Corel PHOTO-PAINT 7. Very quick stab. Under 10 minutes. How'd I do?
I suppose I should include the pic.


Undertoad  Friday Aug 15 03:09 PM

That's some out of the box thinking, effective technique, good work!



zeet  Friday Aug 15 03:18 PM

The thing that gets me about the example that we're using, though is ... well, if the lighting were different, half of that touch-up work wouldn't be necessary. There are ways to light someone who has skin that is that reflective, and you certainly don't need to leave such big shadows under the eyes. It seems like lots of the examples on his site are just poor photography or lazy set preperation being fixed in post. Now, it might be cheaper to do it that way, often, but that doesn't necessarily show great AD.



russotto  Friday Aug 15 05:25 PM

Absolutely. The eyes are very badly shadowed and the spectral lighting really emphasizes the skin imperfections. It looks like they used just one photo flood with no diffuser.

However, the artist did more than fix that; he also narrowed her jawline, and did very nice work around the eyes to remove the creases without making the picture look obviously fake. If you look at the whole-body picture you can see he narrowed her waistline and her right arm, increased her bustline, and turned her right hand somewhat. That's not just fixing photographic issues.



Undertoad  Friday Aug 15 05:54 PM

"ACME Modeling Agency... our models can be fixed in fewer steps."



Annebonannie  Friday Aug 15 08:04 PM

DNK I think you did a fabulous job of downloading the image from the beginning of this thread, reflecting it 90 degrees, and reposting it as your own airbrush work.



Annebonannie  Friday Aug 15 08:08 PM

I've been thinking about it, and I think the guy, Greg Adpodaca, cheated a little by doing his airbrush work, and then taking the original image and using an unsharp filter on it to accentuate her imperfections to make his finished product comparison that much more dramatic.



LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 18 04:11 AM

I'm not sure about all the digital photo touch-up computer programs mumbo-jumbo, but if I knew how much they touched stuff up I would have pursued a career in modeling. Even on a bad day I look better than that chick. I was going to try and get on ABC's Extreme Makeover show, but I can just send you guys/gals a pic and let you have a go at improving my looks. It would be a lot less painful



Nothing But Net  Monday Aug 18 04:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Even on a bad day I look better than that chick.
That may very well be true, but on the other hand she probably doesn't have a screen name that sounds like a sexually transmitted disease.


LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 18 02:31 PM

Touche Net! Actually I'm not all that attractive, but I figure if your being paid to be a model you shouldn't have to be airbrushed to death. At least I feel a little better knowing that pretty much every chick in a mag. really isn't all that great looking in real life. Take that blonde for example, sure she looks better than I do in her before pic, but after a tweek of the pixels she looks totally different. Not even the same person really, but the point is she is getting paid to be beautiful and after all is said and done she got paid to look like someone better looking than herself. So, why couldn't I do the same thing? I've been living under the false assumption that you have to beautiful to begin with to be a model.

As to my screen name, it has nothing at all to do w/STD's. I'm merely a Bugs Bunny fan and thought LUVBUGZ was better than I LOVE BUGS BUNNY. Any suggestions on something better?



juju  Monday Aug 18 02:58 PM

How about something that isn't in all caps?



LUVBUGZ  Monday Aug 18 03:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by juju
How about something that isn't in all caps?
Yea, I was thinking that myself. It is kind of a pain to hit caps lock all the time. I'll wait until I hear Net's comment before I make a change since he seem's to be the one having a problem with it. Not that it matters what he thinks, I'm just curious what suggesions he comes up with. Thanks


xoxoxoBruce  Monday Aug 18 04:50 PM

I like LUVBUGZ.:p



happyhshoe  Wednesday Sep 10 05:11 PM

Well, perhaps the guy took way too much Vitrol.
We have a similar word in English ... Vitriol. The former is probably something put out by Squibb or E.I. Lilly, and contains the following warnings: People who had birth mothers should not take Vitrol. The incidence of exanguanation, profuse bleeding from the armpits, and spontaneous femoral combustion was found to be nominal. Some patients reported losing their sight after taking Vitrol. Talk to your Doctor about Vitrol.

Now, folks, I am only kidding. Please don't think I am trying to do anything other than mess around.
Have fun.



xoxoxoBruce  Wednesday Sep 10 06:31 PM

What the hell have you been smoking?
Where can I get some?



elSicomoro  Wednesday Sep 10 08:38 PM

You're the dirty old man...we thought YOU had the stash.



OnyxCougar  Wednesday Sep 10 09:08 PM

He keeps it hidden among the doodads.



Leus  Thursday Sep 11 03:43 PM

I've just read (and understood) OnyxCougars' signature. Ouch.



xoxoxoBruce  Thursday Sep 11 07:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
You're the dirty old man...we thought YOU had the stash.
The operative word being "had".


happyhshoe  Friday Sep 12 10:08 AM

What stash are we talking about?



xoxoxoBruce  Friday Sep 12 08:01 PM

DAMIFINO?



Scred  Sunday Sep 14 10:30 AM

so, did that mac ever boot up, or what?




dave  Sunday Sep 14 10:37 AM

Processors died and were replaced. Main hard drive shit the bed. Lost about 100GB of data that I really didn't want to lose. Still don't have it back, but should within the next week.



York  Monday Jun 21 07:04 AM

Look , u can discusse all u want in here, the fact is...there are millions a peeps in the world...some got the talent , some need more practice..but there is exellent work everywhere...I never had any graphics in school or anything, im 30 and just bought a cheep camera, the program with it is real simple....the pics dont look so real, but its fun...and isnt that the main thing??
Oh, by the way, i used to be a white boy!! Now i know i can cut and paste eyebrows and stuff, but i dont think its bad for just after one day having the " toy" hahaha



xoxoxoBruce  Monday Jun 21 10:15 AM

If that picture's not you, then you owe somebody one hell of an apology.



York  Monday Jun 21 12:53 PM

i wouldnt try it unless it was me! hahahaha i got plenty other ones too, im getting the hang of it i guess, here's an updated one!!



York  Monday Jun 21 01:51 PM

i got way too red in color! hahaha



Your reply here?

The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: a bunch of interesting folks talking about everything. Add your two cents to IotD by joining the Cellar.