SCiTexing (was: Re: Are portrait photographers crooked?)
Jake Livni
>I've done portraits of beautiful women too, and it really helps to get women
>who don't need a lot of correction.
The NY Times magazine had an (illustrated) article on 'scitexing'.
(Scitex is not only the name of a company, it is now a verb!) Almost
all photos we see these days are scitexed. Which is a bit
disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
scitexed out - and those of us who are mere mortals (and over 16,
worse yet!) can't hope to achieve suych perfection as is being
marketed to us all the time.
--
Jake Livni "Imagine: Palestineans were taught to hate from childhood.
ja...@bony1.bony.com That was seen as good for the national interest.
My opinions only - In fact, it was rather negative; a lot of violence
- employer has no opinions. took place." - The Dalai Lama, NY Times 93/11/28
Alan Sanders
| disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
| scitexed out
I do not understand the objection, actually. Commercial photography
(especially in advertising) has really been just another form of
ILLUSTRATION for many years. Tools like Photoshop... and, of course,
the Scitex machine... simply extend the "creative" possibilities
available to the photo illustrator. The ad copy that these ad guys
write slanders the English language far worse than their images
erode the integrity of photography! :?)
Michael J Graven
> I do not understand the objection, actually. Commercial photography
> (especially in advertising) has really been just another form of
> ILLUSTRATION for many years.
True, true. The rise of faster and easier photo manipulation out of the
darkroom will have (is having) more ethical impact in the news biz; the
NPPA from time to time issues a policy statement on the acceptable and
the unacceptable. While you're tweaking the contrast/color balance,
it's tempting to remove that little annoying thing in the foreground
while you're at it, and maybe if we stretch it a little wider, we won't
need to reflow the page...
It's a slippery slope. Each entity needs to make its own decision on
the line between use and abuse: a popular one I used with my staff was,
"if you couldn't do it with silver, don't do it with bits." Anything
diddled with in nontrivial ways was credited as a photo illustration,
and illustrations were used in particular sections of the paper: never
on page one, never on page three, often on the sports leaf, often on the
living/entertainment doubletruks.
> The ad copy that these ad guys
> write slanders the English language far worse than their images
> erode the integrity of photography! :?)
But the erosion occasioned by non-news photography spills silt into the
river of photojournalism, exacerbating the problem of the public's trust
in the media elite (to borrow a fabulous turn of phrase.) {TIME} got
bit by this just a few weeks ago.
--
-Michael "See that big line in the sky with the blue triangles?
m...@cs.stanford.edu That's why it's colder now." -- Roger Treamstra, WGN
Marcus J Ranum
> disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
> scitexed out
It's horrible! A perversion of art!
I've heard some photographers also "adjust" the tonality
of their prints in the enlarger by selectively "fudging" the amount
of light different areas on the paper are given. They call it "dodging"
and "burning" or something like that. Then there was this other guy
who used to brutally manipulate his landscapes by deliberately altering
the contrast of his negatives by over/underdeveloping them!
There's just no art left, anymore. :(
mjr.
Jake Livni
>> Almost all photos we see these days are scitexed. Which is a bit
>> disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
>> scitexed out
>
> It's horrible! A perversion of art!
Who cares about art?
My concern was that advertising photography (always a rather deceptive
business) now relies on manipulation in almost every shot and makes
things so unattainably and unrealistically perfect that NO ONE could
ever aspire to have/look/feel as a good as they want us to try to (if
we only buy their products, of course). The result of this is that
those who are not aware of this manipulation (a majority of the
public, today) will become terribly unhappy and will spend money
trying to get things they cannot possibly achieve.
(P.S. Because this is a competitive world, even those of us who are
not swayed by these ads find we still have to compete with everyone
else, anyways.)
Alan Sanders
| deceptive business) now relies on manipulation in almost every
| terribly unhappy and will spend money trying to get things they
| cannot possibly achieve.
So what else is new???
Advertising has always been in the business of manipulating PEOPLE...
never mind the images! No one has EVER gotten their wash as white
as the detergent commercials claim... Image manipulation is simply
a new wrinkle in a very old con game. Snake oil is snake oil! :?)
-Alan
Steve Wall
>
> My concern was that advertising photography (always a rather deceptive
> business) now relies on manipulation in almost every shot and makes
> things so unattainably and unrealistically perfect that NO ONE could
> ever aspire to have/look/feel as a good as they want us to try to (if
> we only buy their products, of course). The result of this is that
> those who are not aware of this manipulation (a majority of the
> public, today) will become terribly unhappy and will spend money
> trying to get things they cannot possibly achieve.
>
Ummmm... What are the ads selling? The model with perfect complexion
or the clothes she's wearing? I think it's the clothes.
--
Steve Wall
Jake Livni
>| My concern was that advertising photography (always a rather
>| deceptive business) now relies on manipulation in almost every
>| shot... The result of this is that those who are not aware of
>| this manipulation (a majority of the public, today) will become
>| terribly unhappy and will spend money trying to get things they
>| cannot possibly achieve.
> -Jake Livni
>
>So what else is new???
Digital manipulation is now so easy, seamless and cost-effective that
it is used on everything. Most people don't realize this.
>Advertising has always been in the business of manipulating PEOPLE...
>never mind the images! No one has EVER gotten their wash as white
>as the detergent commercials claim... Image manipulation is simply
>a new wrinkle in a very old con game. Snake oil is snake oil! :?)
But people don't yet realize that those photographs they see
everywhere are of things that just don't exist! Not only are those
unfortunate enough not to be in the know being duped and losing their
hard-earned money, those of us IN the know have to compete with
everyone else. If YOUR car, YOUR laundry and YOUR skin don't look as
good as those manequins in the ad, then YOU are considered a loser,
too. And if YOU don't spend all your money tyring to be more perfect
than perfection itself, YOU are considered to be a loser who isn't
even trying.
The idea of advertising is to make people feel unhappy about
themselves and to suggest that if they just spend their money on a
particular product or service, they will then be happy. Of course,
the products DON'T have that final effect. People remain unhappy,
instead. And this is the final result. Digital manipulation is a new
way of fooling people into thinking that they should believe what they
see. They shouldn't - because of sneaky, deceptive and (already!)
overused manipulation.
Pat Zura
In article <smwall-0808...@hipmac16.pica.army.mil> (rec.photo,rec.photo.advanced), smw...@pica.army.mil (Steve Wall) writes:
Ummmm... What are the ads selling? The model with perfect complexion
or the clothes she's wearing? I think it's the clothes.
No, it's not just clothes, it's Image, Lifestyle, and even Happiness.
The clothes, complexion, location, even the expression on the model's
face are all part of the sell. The sad part is how many people fall for it.
Pat Zura <apple.com!logician!sophie!pat>
Richard Karash
: > Almost all photos we see these days are scitexed. Which is a bit
: > disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
: > scitexed out
The cover photo on Mirabella this month (by Hiro) I find very striking.
Extraordinarily sharp, no soft focus here. You can see individual facial
hairs and a grain of sand on her shoulder.
Is this the absence of manipulation or is it scitexing taken to another
level?
--
Richard Karash | (o) 508-879-8301 | Golf * Flying
Innovation Associates, Inc. | (fax) 508-626-2205 | Systems Thinking
3 Speen St, Framingham MA 01701 | (h) 617-523-3895 | PGP * Mac * Photo
Jake Livni
>Someone wrote
>: > Almost all photos we see these days are scitexed. Which is a bit
>: > disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
>: > scitexed out
>
>The cover photo on Mirabella this month (by Hiro) I find very striking.
>Extraordinarily sharp, no soft focus here. You can see individual facial
>hairs and a grain of sand on her shoulder.
>
>Is this the absence of manipulation or is it scitexing taken to another
>level?
Haven't seen this cover yet but when Kathleen Turner appeared
semi-dressed on a Vanity Fair cover about a year ago and there were
accusations that the image had been manipulated to make her appear
'fuller', VF denied it, though someone (I don't recall who) said then
"ALL covers of major magazines are manipulated; don't believe
otherwise."
I wouldn't expect scitexing to ADD sharp eyebrows but I wouldn't be
surprised if it REMOVED unwanted facial hair (one example portrayed in
the NY Times article), modified lighting or contrast or even changed
eye color! And that one could be hard to detect!
Jake Livni
Ads are trying to sell an image. They try to inspire the victim to go
out and buy their product, suggseting that they will then achieve the
'image' they see in the ad. Do YOU believe that if you smoke XYZ
cigarettes that you will then spend the summer playing on the beach
with a bunch of hunks and young models? But that is the subliminal
msg they send - and advertisers pay many millions for these ads
because they believe that they work. On lots of people, they do.
Using more and more sophisticated techniques for making the images in
ads more deceptive and more compelling is a fundamental dishonesty
which, I suspect, hurts us all in the end - more than it helps.
"Advertising is the business of convincing people to buy things they
don't need with money they don't have to impress people who don't
care anyways." I am sometimes sorry to see photography used towards
this end.
Finally, it hurts even those of us who don't fall for the advertising,
because we live in a competetive society and are deemed to be "losers"
if we don't have the currently advertised products. Just look at all
the goddamn plastic wunderkameras that come out every year and the
zillions of idiotic postings on rec.photo.* on those cameras for proof
that those of us who dare to use something not currently heavily
advertised are considered "losers" by those around us. Same for cars,
bodybuilding services, clothing, foods, pump-up sneakers, lemonade
with artificial flavoring, dishwashing liquid with real lemon juice,
(I kid you not; America is a strange place), etc...
Jake Livni
>In article <CuJxE...@world.std.com> rka...@world.std.com (Richard Karash) writes:
>>Someone wrote
>>: > Almost all photos we see these days are scitexed. Which is a bit
>>: > disconcerting. Even 16 year old models are having bumps and lines
>>: > scitexed out
>>
>>The cover photo on Mirabella this month (by Hiro) I find very striking.
>>Extraordinarily sharp, no soft focus here. You can see individual facial
>>hairs and a grain of sand on her shoulder.
>>
>>Is this the absence of manipulation or is it scitexing taken to another
>>level?
>
>Haven't seen this cover yet but when Kathleen Turner appeared
>semi-dressed on a Vanity Fair cover about a year ago and there were
>accusations that the image had been manipulated to make her appear
>'fuller', VF denied it, though someone (I don't recall who) said then
>"ALL covers of major magazines are manipulated; don't believe
>otherwise."
>
>I wouldn't expect scitexing to ADD sharp eyebrows but I wouldn't be
>surprised if it REMOVED unwanted facial hair (one example portrayed in
>the NY Times article), modified lighting or contrast or even changed
>eye color! And that one could be hard to detect!
I just had a look at this cover - and it just proves my point. Boy,
is it manipulated, and you didn't even notice! There is a shallow
depth of field which (properly) includes the face. The forward
shoulder is very noticably soft as is the hair behind. Yet the
distant background (mountains, SW USA) are perfectly sharp again. And
the (sharp) background shows through very clearly between the (fuzzy)
hairs! Either this a new-fangled lens with TWO distinct planes of
focus or else it's been very manipulated. ALso, note the shadow of
the hair over the whites of the eyes - that's not real. (Whitening
the whites of the eyes are a manipulation standard.) It only takes a
few seconds for someone who is looking for it to recognize the
manipulations - but everyone else is falling for it.
Steve Wall
>
> Ads are trying to sell an image. They try to inspire the victim to go
> out and buy their product, suggseting that they will then achieve the
> 'image' they see in the ad. Do YOU believe that if you smoke XYZ
> cigarettes that you will then spend the summer playing on the beach
> with a bunch of hunks and young models? But that is the subliminal
> msg they send - and advertisers pay many millions for these ads
> because they believe that they work. On lots of people, they do.
>
Somehow, I always figured that the beer companies were trying to
create a good public image by producing amusing/entertaining ads,
on the theory that if you like the company, you'll buy the product.
I never really expected arctic air blasts and beautiful women as a
result of opening a beer. I don't think anyone does, even subliminally.
> Using more and more sophisticated techniques for making the images in
> ads more deceptive and more compelling is a fundamental dishonesty
> which, I suspect, hurts us all in the end - more than it helps.
>
> "Advertising is the business of convincing people to buy things they
> don't need with money they don't have to impress people who don't
> care anyways." I am sometimes sorry to see photography used towards
> this end.
I'm sure Shakespeare would be appalled that they use the English language
to do their dirty work too. Da Vinci would be shocked to learn that they
use sketches. So, let's deny them the right to use photos, sketches,
or text to advertise. Now what?
>
> Finally, it hurts even those of us who don't fall for the advertising,
> because we live in a competetive society and are deemed to be "losers"
> if we don't have the currently advertised products. Just look at all
> the goddamn plastic wunderkameras that come out every year and the
> zillions of idiotic postings on rec.photo.* on those cameras for proof
> that those of us who dare to use something not currently heavily
> advertised are considered "losers" by those around us. Same for cars,
> bodybuilding services, clothing, foods, pump-up sneakers, lemonade
> with artificial flavoring, dishwashing liquid with real lemon juice,
> (I kid you not; America is a strange place), etc...
>
Quite strange. But is the uncommercialized, uncompetitive society any
better? I haven't seen any that I'd prefer. BTW, I've shifted followups
to rec.photo.misc, figuring that this discussion has devolved away from
the *.advanced charter.
--
Steve Wall
Brian Bisset
>>>The cover photo on Mirabella this month (by Hiro) I find very striking.
>>>Extraordinarily sharp, no soft focus here. You can see individual facial
>>>hairs and a grain of sand on her shoulder.
>>>
>>>Is this the absence of manipulation or is it scitexing taken to another
>>>level?
I realise that this issue is getting a little long in the tooth, but there
seems to be a few questions without answers. Yes... to most of these
questions.
I drop into this group from time to time as I'm an ex-photog, and I enjoy the
tech stuff. I now am involved as a computer layout and design person with
formal training in what you have been discussing, and frankly find it all
somewhat amusing. The manipulations as you call them are all possible and
more...
>>I wouldn't expect scitexing to ADD sharp eyebrows but I wouldn't be
>>surprised if it REMOVED unwanted facial hair (one example portrayed in
>>the NY Times article), modified lighting or contrast or even changed
>>eye color! And that one could be hard to detect!
Very hard indeed! The operator simply selects the eye area by drawing a
selction "marquee" around it and adjusts the hue of that specific area -
pretty much kids play. Unwanted facial hair is a little more difficult,
especially if you don't want to blur the image "beneath" the hair, but by
pixel editing or cloning an unhairy area adjacent, it's not that hard to do.
Time consuming, but the client has lots of money to pay for perfection...
>I just had a look at this cover - and it just proves my point. Boy,
>is it manipulated, and you didn't even notice! There is a shallow
>depth of field which (properly) includes the face. The forward
>shoulder is very noticably soft as is the hair behind. Yet the
>distant background (mountains, SW USA) are perfectly sharp again. And
>the (sharp) background shows through very clearly between the (fuzzy)
>hairs! Either this a new-fangled lens with TWO distinct planes of
>focus or else it's been very manipulated. ALso, note the shadow of
>the hair over the whites of the eyes - that's not real. (Whitening
>the whites of the eyes are a manipulation standard.) It only takes a
>few seconds for someone who is looking for it to recognize the
>manipulations - but everyone else is falling for it.
Heh, heh, heh... Check the light sources. Has she ever even been to the SW,
USA? Ever wonder how they get perfect studio lighting on a car sitting on top
of one of the pinnacles in Monument Valley? Very possibly she was shot in
front of a "hot" white background. You "select" everything in the scanned
photo that is pure white. This gets you all the background - even between the
hairs - plus whatever part of the model is pure white. The artist then
de-selects those parts not part of the b-ground... say catchlight in her eyes,
spectral off of a buckle, etc. So he/she now has selected only the visible
portion of the background. Now the fun part... the artist now inverts the
selection. i.e.- now the visible portion of the background is the only thing
"not selected". In other words only the model, props she's holding etc. are
selected. And are now "copied" to the clipboard or image buffer, and then
"pasted" on top of a lovely SW, USA shot. Light sources can of course be
altered, but it would be easier to shoot her at the same time of day and angle
outside her Manhattan apartment with our shiny white background behind her.
Now, I'm not saying this is what happened - I've never seen the cover - but it
sure as hell could and 99.99% wouldn't be the wiser.
As to the issue "Is it honest, is it right?"... IMHO, is it right to use a
soft-focus filter, or a softbox, or north-facing windowlight? Or motordrives,
auto-focus, chip-governed spot-metering? Or for that matter... models
that are better-looking than 99.99% of you-know-who.
Yada, Yada, Yada... It's all technology and/or what the client wants. And if
we don't do it, we're all warmin' subs at the AM/PM, instead of being able to
work at the job we love (I hope). The reason - I believe - photographers are
up in arms about all this image manipulation contraversy is... it's taking
away some of the "creative" aspects of imagery and placing it in those further
down the line - the artists and the clients. Fact is, if it can be done... it
will be done - money permitting.
My thoughts are my own... Cheers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian D. Bisset - Production Manager, W.H.E. Inc.
Ph. (604)524-4689 Fax (604)524-2886 E-mail: bbisset@ wimsey.com
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing..."
- Wernher Von Braun
Adrian Ford
been `manipulating' images for years - comping, airbrushing, retouching,
etc., and yet, all of a sudden, everyone makes a fuss.
The camera always lies, digitally manipulated or not, how many people
use slightly longer focal length lenses for portraits - forcing them-
selves to move away from the subject to get flatter, more flattering,
perspective?
Computer manipulation is a tool, just like any other, if anyone
believes the images in any form of advert are completely representative
of the truth, then more fool them. Now, if you were talking about
editorial and photjournalism, then that would be a different matter ....
Thom Ness
> Many Lines Deleted
>
>"Advertising is the business of convincing people to buy things they
>don't need with money they don't have to impress people who don't
>care anyways." I am sometimes sorry to see photography used towards
>this end.
>
that I need and I then buy it with money that I do have. My friends are
very impressed anyway %-)
Lighten up!
> Many Lines Deleted
>--
>Jake Livni "Imagine: Palestineans were taught to hate from childhood.
>ja...@bony1.bony.com That was seen as good for the national interest.
>My opinions only - In fact, it was rather negative; a lot of violence
>- employer has no opinions. took place." - The Dalai Lama, NY Times 93/11/28
Thom
--
Thomas G. Ness - Sales Analyst - Cray Research Superservers, Inc.
Any opinions expressed here represent my current thinking and do not reflect
on my employer's opinions. Opinions subject to change without notice!
Jake Livni
As a matter of fact, FLYING magazine manipulated a cover about a year
or so ago in which the rear flier in an open-cockpit bi-plane was
climbing out, preparing to jump off. The pilot in the front had been
electronically removed, making it look like the plane would be left
pilotless in mid-air. They got a lot of flak for that...
Jake Livni
>In article <CuosK...@bony1.bony.com> ja...@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>"Advertising is the business of convincing people to buy things they
>>don't need with money they don't have to impress people who don't
>>care anyways." I am sometimes sorry to see photography used towards
>>this end.
>This may come as a shock, but every now and then I see an ad for something
>that I need and I then buy it with money that I do have. My friends are
>very impressed anyway %-)
Many years ago, I used to buy and read Pop/Mod PHotography not only
for their articles (which have each been reprinted 5 times since then)
but for the ads, which were informative. They told me what was new
and provided specs that allowed me to compare products. It is not
this kind of advertising that bothers me (though the topic of "70-210"
mm zooms that are really 78-182 mm has already been covered in
previous threads). When the advertising is deceptive and misleading
and attempts to trick the under-informed, this is immoral,
inappropriate and wrong. When photography or technology are abused to
further these lowly goals, I am especially annoyed and offended, kinda
like a mathematician (which I am not) is offended when numbers are
used to trick the innumerate (another common problem in our society).
Drew P. Griffin
Ford) wrote:
> How comes it's so bad to digitally manipulate an image? Advertisers have
> been `manipulating' images for years - comping, airbrushing, retouching,
> etc., and yet, all of a sudden, everyone makes a fuss.
I personally don't think manipulation is "bad", but I think it detracts
from the purity of photography to BS the viewer into thinking that you
captured a moment in time when the sun was sinking behind a white
snow-capped nountain that is reflected in a lake with an eagle larger than
life flying overhead and a moose standing next to the water blah blah blah
blah.
If you want the image, work for it. Don't piece it together like a
scrapbook. Those of us that have the patience and learn the techniques and
spend the time to go after any such image don't appreciate someone
"building" a similar image in Photoshop. But you spend the time to capture
that ever-elusive image on fim and then your Velvia comes bask from the lab
with a scratch running through the center of the frame and it's ruined. So
you use Photoshop to "retouch" the image so it's useful. I don't see that
as manipulation, just image salvation....the computer made it easier to do
then spending hours hanging over a dink little piece of film with a
paintbrush.
> The camera always lies, digitally manipulated or not, how many people
> use slightly longer focal length lenses for portraits - forcing them-
> selves to move away from the subject to get flatter, more flattering,
> perspective?
The camera doesn't lie, but the photographer makes a decision of what he
wants the viewer to see, or as you put it in the last few words, changes
perspective. That's a selective tool and not exactly in the same boat as
my example above. The moment is still in front of the camera, and it
really happened. You just didn't have to include all the garbage around
it. Frankly, editorial and journalism photography are no different from
what you mentioned above. The photographer still used a particular lens
and composed a particular way to show the viewer "his/her" perspective of
the moment.
> Computer manipulation is a tool, just like any other, if anyone
> believes the images in any form of advert are completely representative
> of the truth, then more fool them. Now, if you were talking about
> editorial and photjournalism, then that would be a different matter ....
You are absolutely right. Computers are a tool just like any other, and
don't get me wrong from my above statements thinking that I don't think
they are a creative tool. They are! Images of any type are subjective to
the artist's own eye and what he/she feels is important to that moment.
That's the bottom line. But, again personally speaking, I'm still in to
the "purity" of creating the image you want the viewer to see on FILM, not
on a computer screen. To me, taking a couple of snapshots with a
point-and-shoot and then digitally manipulating them on a computer is not
"photography". It's another medium altogether (call it imaging, or digital
imaging, or something).
OK.....I'm sure this one went over big, but I wouldn't have voiced my
opinion if I wasn't ready to be flamed.....fire away!
-Drew P. Griffin
Griffin Photography
Cary, NC
Robert Slugg
and correct and $20 to print. The philosophy amongst photographers who make
a living is to generate expensive negatives in the camera (filtration,
cropping, and vignetting) and make machine prints of those rather than
shooting a cheap negative and having the lab add all the special
effects. Given the cost of photomanipulation available, I think the days of
5 figure/day photography are over. Editors can get less photography and
have the art department add the final touches. For the bread and butter
everyday senior, couples, and glamour portraits, digital manipulation
will have a minimal effect, except in cases of closed eyes, severe acne,
and scars, or severely vain people.
Bob
--
Robert M. Slugg Meyer 5-109 Johns Hopkins Hospital fax (410) 955-1032
rsl...@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu
We're all here because we aren't all there
Jake Livni
[steps in merging image of studio-lit model with background from SW
USA]
I had another look at the Mirabella cover in question. There is a
third element in the picture: an IC chip is flying/floating through
the sky. Perhaps this is meant to indicate the digital manipulation
that the cover has (now obviously) been through.
Brian Bisset
>In article <bbisset.6...@wimsey.com> bbi...@wimsey.com (Brian Bisset)
>writes:
>I had another look at the Mirabella cover in question. There is a
>third element in the picture: an IC chip is flying/floating through
>the sky. Perhaps this is meant to indicate the digital manipulation
>that the cover has (now obviously) been through.
Certainly not the "Industry Standard" signature, but quite amusing all the
same...
Perhaps a distinguished gentleman sporting a darkcloth and an anguished look?
Michael Knauf
: In article <CusAL...@westminster.ac.uk>, ajo...@westminster.ac.uk (Adrian
: Ford) wrote:
: I personally don't think manipulation is "bad", but I think it detracts
: from the purity of photography to BS the viewer into thinking that you
: captured a moment in time when the sun was sinking behind a white
: snow-capped nountain that is reflected in a lake with an eagle larger than
: life flying overhead and a moose standing next to the water blah blah blah
: blah.
Ah... there's the rub... What's "bad" is most of the retouching that's
being done out there. So many computer techs and so few artists. If you
know how big the eagle should look, and know that the reflections in the
water are more then a flipped version of the eagle pasted at 35%...
If you cant make the shadows match the angle of incidence of the light...
I work in a service bureau that outputs this stuff. Anyone with 5 or 6
grand can do photographic retouching on 50 - 60 Megabyte images which
a 8x10 and smaller are as good as original photos... what _anyone_ can't
do, is make believable images. Most composited work is recognizable
as composite work, the stuff that I can't spot is truly artistic.
For me, the image is the thing, and I don't care how you get it. Even better
if I cant even guess how you did it...
: If you want the image, work for it. Don't piece it together like a
: scrapbook. Those of us that have the patience and learn the techniques and
: spend the time to go after any such image don't appreciate someone
: "building" a similar image in Photoshop. But you spend the time to capture
: that ever-elusive image on fim and then your Velvia comes bask from the lab
: with a scratch running through the center of the frame and it's ruined. So
: you use Photoshop to "retouch" the image so it's useful. I don't see that
: as manipulation, just image salvation....the computer made it easier to do
: then spending hours hanging over a dink little piece of film with a
: paintbrush.
To get that "similar" image takes as much time, effort, and knowledge, and
probably much more capital investment. This is all still new, but the
time will come, soon that the poor retouching will become unsaleable.
The best work done today, is by studio photographers who plan the compositesm
and take images with the intent to seamlessly composite them. Don't belittle
their work, it takes much more skill than you seem to think.
Michael]