8/12/2003: Talented digital airbrushing
 

http://cellar.org/2003/digitalairbrushing.jpg

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! :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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>.

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.
:thumb:
That's part of the plan to separate the ones that are serious.:D

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.

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.:D

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.

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".

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.

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 .... :D

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.

http://cellar.org/2003/face.jpg

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."

Umm.... on foot? or with a vehicle?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

That'd be the motherboard, Bob. They estimate 2 weeks repair. So hold your horses.

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."

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.

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!)

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" :eek:

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