8/12/2003: Talented digital airbrushing

[Undertoad]

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.)

[hot_pastrami]

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.

[tandr]

emm... can this guy retouch me for 10-20 kilos somehow ?

[Annebonannie]

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.

[Annebonannie]

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!

Originally posted by Annebonannie
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 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.

[Annebonannie]

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.

[Annebonannie]

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"

[xoxoxoBruce]

The family of 4 with the big noses. Turning that guys head is a pretty good trick.

[juju]

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.

You remind me of those folks who think their Microsoft Word and Powerpoint are interchangable with Adobe Illustrator.

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>.

[juju]

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?