Fun Stuff > MAKE

Photoshopped VS Not

<< < (6/7) > >>

IronOxide:

--- Quote from: pilsner on 24 Oct 2007, 11:30 ---The real question is to what extent can you screw with your picture on an online dating site before it becomes immoral.  My litmus test:

-- Removing blemishes: OK
-- Replacing your head with the head of Stephen Colbert: NOT OK

P.S. Photoshop has this tool with some innocent name like the "fade" tool or something but I swear it was developed to remove blemishes from headshots by spotty geeks.  It works too well to be anything else.

--- End quote ---

It's called the heal tool, and that's exactly what it's for (well, removing anything from a picture). Compare these that I took after messing up my face last year before and after a five minute GIMP job. (Click to Enlarge)

Before:


After:


I know it's not very good, but it shows what someone with a very base level of competence can do with a single tool.

I don't see anything wrong with if I wanted to do this for some kind of website, although it's not a great picture of me to begin with. It's not quite unrepresentative, it just looks like I don't have serious facial damage.

KharBevNor:
I never said that a childs paintings weren't art.

Jesus christ people.

Peet:
In Soviet Russia, photo shops you.

()

CmonMiracle:
Honestly, I know how to use Photoshop and have developed pictures in a darkroom, but I use them for completely different reasons. (Plus, Photoshop is just cheaper and less time-consuming)

KharBevNor:
This whole thread's bollocks anyway. The camera always lies, and no proffessional photographer still uses a wet darkroom. They're only really useful for art photography, and only necessary for large format work.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page