nt.
Printable View
nt.
if they do ,thats fine if they dont they are amazing
I don't think anybody has airbrushed since like the late seventies.
I have an airbrush. I tried to airbrush some scales on Scar for the swamp monster shoot, but it really wasn't working, so I gave up on that idea. I think it was for the best.
Have you tried metal mesh wireform? It's what i used when airbrushing the swamp monster at a haunted house :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
Well..I ment more computerish airbrushing. Smoothing out pores/imperfections etc.
The only time i've ever been airbrushed, like with the paint gun thing, was for this horrid Erotica Boxing thing i did for a now defunkt company in the valley. I actually fought the makeup artist on it and ended up taking the eyeshadow brush out of her hands and doing my own make up because she was a complete moron, but that's totally beside the point.
As far as I know the only "photo-chopping" BB did to any of my photos was all done with lights and cameras. Some one as naturally pale as me, you light me right, almost none of my freckles show up on film. Works for other blemishes, too. But that's just a testament to hte amazing photography Forrest and Amelia are capable of.
~K
you clearly don't watch Pimp My Ride!Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
Velvet-Tongue - it's never going to be 'yes/no' as there's a whole pantheon of things that can happen to an image. To me 'airbrushing' is a specific term for corrections that alter reality to achieve something *meant to deceive*. Example..
A digital shoot outdoors in winter, all gothic n shizzle.. take one model, remove clothing, apply gravestones and one terminally bored iguana.
Because of the need to keep with ambient light there was no flash, and so the camera's ISO was increased. Fine enough but the images were hit by CCD noise, and the colors of the model's skin were a little bluer than they looked to the eye because of the lower sunlight scatter. The iguana seemed happy though.
Back in the office, the photographer adjusts the levels so that the clouds stand out a little better, then burns back a few foreground patches that were bleaching out. It looks better but real close up there's still noise.. so he applies a hinky little noise-ninja filter. The sky looks 'proper' now, but in the process the very slight smoothing of the noise filter has removed some creases from around the model's eyes and a freckle has vanished on her ass. The color of her eyes is a little more saturated than in reality. The iguana now looks plastic, so he carefully pastes back some parts of the original so the little critter looks terminally bored again. The model has been 'altered', but it wasn't intentional to remove those features of her skin, they simply weren't important to isolate and preserve. It's called "collateral improvement".
Now, he gets a phone call from the model's momma, who is a perfectly reasonable woman but happens to be 250lb and the owner of a well-used Desert Eagle. She suggests he's made her baby look fat, and that it may be in the photographer's interest to fix said image before someone goes Die Hard on his ass. So he takes a moment and schlurps 5lb from her hips to her tits.
At what point did the image stop being 'original' and start being 'airbrushed', and at what point did anyone care?
All I have to say is watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpvJeeICT78:beermug:
:1orglaughQuote:
Originally Posted by Mindgames
The exact point: When a models B's magically became DD's :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindgames
People go way overboard in accusing folks of photochopping. A couple people have even accused me of photochopping my own cat's eye:rolleyes: . I've known several other people to have captured a cool image only to have some idiot insist that he/she is an expert and *knows* it to be photochopped.
I don't care personally what is or is not photochopped. Nothing wrong with asking either. I just find it sadly amusing that some people insist they know when they are just plain wrong.
Jackie T
oh i'm sorry i assumed too much with the question no i do not think they ever use an actual air-brush i assumed you meant any retouching mainly phoshopin
if they do please consider me first when you are pulverising assorted stuff to make your own pigments that are then sprayed on them... i volunteer to be the assorted stuff
oh yes they have haha... or maybe it's a case of "death by gaussian blur' i don't know...Quote:
Originally Posted by Amelia G
http://inlinethumb31.webshots.com/34...425x425Q85.jpg
btw my reply to the above (admittedly interesting) words on the foto would be...
http://www.helcyon.com/img/shutthefuckup.gif
this next image is from a relatively recent and decent tutorial about how to do it as well. (note... obviously photographed by cheap students or something as it looks like they haven't bought the model any lunch so she's resorted to gnawing on her own underwear... no other explanation that I can think of for what the hell she's doing here?!?)...
http://www.sxc.hu/pic/b/m/mi/mindfreak/air8.jpg
if you are a novice like me and/or interested and/or have a "my underwear is a moveable feast" inclination follow this link to airbrush tutorial
Airbrush good. anyway apart from girls the other thing you should airbrush is cars... heaps better effect than the encrusting them ad-hoc with whatever's at hand. You must agree that even the tackiest airbrushed hoon-mobile defeats the following travesty....
http://rubert.com/Blogpix/05Nov/faith_car.jpg
I don't airbrush. I don't have time, whatever the photog does is cool, but usually they give me raw files for trade. The key is makeup and lighting.
Same here, Ive never been airbrushed.