Edit This
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-08 | Canon G9 + 5 hours of Photoshop
»www.digitalphotoshopretouching.c···vid1.htm |
|
SandShark
So it goes
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX
clubs: | Pretty amazing, especially considering he'd probably still spend 5 hours in PS even if the image had been taken with that $30K camera. |
|
HFB1217
The Wizard
Premium,ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-26
Camelot
clubs: 
| reply to Edit This
The original image as compared to the retouched one is my preference of the two the retouched one looks plastic and a computer CGI type of image. Both though are not perfect but the original one at least looks like a real person.
--
****aka The WIZARD **** A Founding member Seti BBR Team Starfire**** |
|
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
 ·Hawaiian Telcom
edit:
May 4th, @02:02AM
| reply to Edit This
Thanks for the link... very interesting. I don't really agree with the premise... or was it his conclusion...
First of all, the caption says "Proof that you can in fact create top beauty images with a point & shoot camera". The Canon G9 is no run of the mill P&S, though. It costs almost $500!
Then there's the whole involved process with makeup, hair, lighting, etc. IMO, the point being made should be "There's more to creating top beauty images than just pointing and shooting". The camera is almost irrelevant when you control the subject, the scene and the lighting. The mechanics of pointing and shooting are also not the exclusive domain of P&S cameras... a much better spec'd dSLR, while in auto mode, works the same. 
Finally, the big deal with Photoshop was mostly lost on me. The end result with altered eyes, lips, cheeks, etc... waste of time, IMO. 5 hours? A real waste. About the only worthwhile edit along these lines was the smoothing of the hair, maybe. Gotta wonder though... why not have the stylist fix the hair before pressing the shutter!
Heh... just my take, I guess. No disrespect to the guy who put together the video.
--
My Site |
|
Pretorious
Theres more behind the pic than the wall
Premium,MVM
join:2003-01-08
clubs: | reply to Edit This
Pretty amazing results. Thanks for posting this interesting video link. |
|
mark470
eh?
Premium
join:2002-01-09
Hooksett, NH | reply to Edit This
a medium format vs a dslr vs a p/s hmmm thats a no brain-er
although some p/s body's have the same size sensor as a dslr body
--
my heart belongs to a canadian, she is the best. |
|
Gemologist
Premium
join:2001-11-15
USA
clubs:
·Embarq
| reply to Edit This
Uh... Now, take the same image shot with each camera and print it @ 11x14" and larger and then compare each one, you will quickly be able to tell which was the P&S and which was the dSLR and which was the MF!
There is a reason the Pros pick certain types of cameras, lol. But, if you don't do prints, then it really does not matter.
Even in the full rez sample you can see the loss of any fine details and the bad pixelation.
I am all for agreeing that the majority of folks that think they need an expensive camera could do the same stuff they do with their expensive dSLR with a $150-$250 P&S, though!!
--
Images are Copyrighted and use is NOT
permitted. |
|
bostechie
I'm too old to know everything
Premium
join:2002-02-05
Boston, MA
 ·Comcast Formerly ..
edit:
May 10th, @11:49AM
| reply to Edit This
Y U K
I looked through all the samples on the website and frankly couldn't find one that I liked. All of the images looked like CGI/plastic. 
I'll take realism any day, thank you very much. 
--
"Life is too important to be taken seriously" - Oscar Wilde
"NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY" |
|
