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?)

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

Technology is amazing.

(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.)

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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"

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

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

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.

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?

Welcome Annebonannie, you have now officially arrived.

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".

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.

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..." ?

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.

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

I think Dave just like saying "boner."

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.

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

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

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.)

(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.)

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.)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

Less talk, more airbrushing, imo!

I'd like to see it too.

I'll even go first

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.

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."

I love your quote, bmgb!

What steps did you use on your image?

I'd hit it.

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

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

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.

Why can't we all just get along?

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

I think we are all waiting for your version Dave.

Isn't that what I just said?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.)

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

It was a time warp, I swear.

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

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.

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.

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.

I wanted a go at it...

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

Re: I wanted a go at it...

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

How about something that isn't in all caps?

Quote:

Originally posted by juju How about something that isn't in all caps?

I like LUVBUGZ.:p

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.

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

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

He keeps it hidden among the doodads.

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

What stash are we talking about?

DAMIFINO?

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

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.

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

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

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!!

i got way too red in color! hahaha