User Controls
the photoshop fred
-
2017-08-02 at 11:43 PM UTCwho does photoshop on here? made this fred to discuss anything photoshop. tips, tricks, cheats, tools and anything else related. i personally use gimp but i'm pretty sure they are similar enough to discuss either in this fred.
also what sort of stuff do you work on? i been practising body work lately and am starting to get the hang of iwarp, heal, clone and airbrush. looking to start playing around with frequency separation soon. just been watching some yt vids to figure it out.
here's a couple of fat sluts i did today just for practice. didn't spend a great deal of time on them, prolly 45 minutes each. i know theres more to do tho.
lol, not taken time to re-sort the doorframe^ ha
not so happy with the left armpit and shoulder with this one. definitely some touching up to do.
i'm totally open to constructive criticism and advice on both of these tho to help improve my skills.
.
Post last edited by NARCassist at 2017-08-03T01:35:43.419574+00:00 -
2017-08-03 at 12:37 AM UTCim into photography and have been since before photoshop was invented. as far as im concerned adjusting photos artificially in a way to deceive is anti-artwork. the only digital adjustment i do to my pictures is with color...hue...cropping...etc. not making a fat chick look like a skinny chick.
-
2017-08-03 at 12:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock im into photography and have been since before photoshop was invented. as far as im concerned adjusting photos artificially in a way to deceive is anti-artwork. the only digital adjustment i do to my pictures is with color…hue…cropping…etc. not making a fat chick look like a skinny chick.
i don't think photoshopping pix is really any different to chicks using make up to cover blemishes and spots or to enhance features. also light and camera angles will often be used to hide certain aspects of the subject or to enhance other features. its just a different route to the same destination. get with the times bill.
also..
. -
2017-08-03 at 12:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock im into photography and have been since before photoshop was invented. as far as im concerned adjusting photos artificially in a way to deceive is anti-artwork. the only digital adjustment i do to my pictures is with color…hue…cropping…etc. not making a fat chick look like a skinny chick.
in all seriousness tho bill, i would definitely like to discuss this with you more if you are a photographer. i reckon you could give me a unique insight into some of this stuff from the other side of the camera. feel free to post in this fred with your thoughts and opinions.
thx.
. -
2017-08-03 at 1:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist i don't think photoshopping pix is really any different to chicks using make up to cover blemishes and spots or to enhance features. also light and camera angles will often be used to hide certain aspects of the subject or to enhance other features. its just a different route to the same destination. get with the times bill.
to each his own.
all my chick-pics are kept as-is except for the previously mentioned minimal color/cropping/exposure/focus-defocus etc. every photographer can do his own shit...its his shit. i know of some who take pics of chicks, sometimes in green-screen, then completely cut the chick out of the pic and photoshop them into one sort of background or another. i use light/angle/focus/etc to hide tattoos, scars, etc, but like i said...to each his own.
it took me a few years longer than most photographers i know to go from film to digital. i still have several film cameras...a 'real' 35mm, not counting the shit point-and-shoot ones, a few 120/240s, and a 4x5. id use them more often if the juden (literally) who virtually run the industry werent charging so much for film and processing. plus, the dude who used to develop my nekkid pics apparently died. literally. -
2017-08-03 at 1:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist in all seriousness tho bill, i would definitely like to discuss this with you more if you are a photographer. i reckon you could give me a unique insight into some of this stuff from the other side of the camera. feel free to post in this fred with your thoughts and opinions.
thx.
i have been -
2017-08-03 at 1:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock to each his own.
all my chick-pics are kept as-is except for the previously mentioned minimal color/cropping/exposure/focus-defocus etc. every photographer can do his own shit…its his shit. i know of some who take pics of chicks, sometimes in green-screen, then completely cut the chick out of the pic and photoshop them into one sort of background or another. i use light/angle/focus/etc to hide tattoos, scars, etc, but like i said…to each his own.
it took me a few years longer than most photographers i know to go from film to digital. i still have several film cameras…a 'real' 35mm, not counting the shit point-and-shoot ones, a few 120/240s, and a 4x5. id use them more often if the juden (literally) who virtually run the industry werent charging so much for film and processing. plus, the dude who used to develop my nekkid pics apparently died. literally.
funny actually, i was tightening up some nudes of this chick the other week. she was pretty hot and being a bloke and a bit horny i got 'carried away' with them. but instead of jerking to the new hot pix with all her lumps and bumps shopped out, i jerked to the originals, coz having done the work i knew the shopped pix weren't real and that there were big chunks of her missing, and i couldn't get that thought out of my head to the point it was totally putting me off. usually tho i'll happily jerk off to pix online which i know full well are shopped, but having not done the work and not seen the originals it doesn't bother me tho. and i am quite fussy about fat chicks too, never been a fan of the bigger girls tbh.
its kinda funny how that works, lol.
. -
2017-08-03 at 1:59 AM UTCbut yes, having done a fair bit of shop work now, i understand a lot better how key light and shadow is to photography. do you have any tips associated with use of light and shadow bill?
. -
2017-08-03 at 2:03 AM UTCalso, how would you go about setting up a shoot on the first women in the op? what things would you need to take into consideration? would there be any particular settings you would consider to make better use of light and/or shadow, etc?
. -
2017-08-03 at 2:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist also, how would you go about setting up a shoot on the first women in the op? what things would you need to take into consideration? would there be any particular settings you would consider to make better use of light and/or shadow, etc?
every chick is different. back in the olden days id 'woo' a chick to get her to do pics...such as showing her the model portfolio i had (before they invented the internet)...and tell her all the neato photo experience i had...and asking her nicely.
nowadays if im talking to a chick who looks interesting ill ask her straightforward. if she says yes...great...we set up a shoot. if she says no...great...now i dont have to spend all that time setting up all my gear and planning. the only modeling pics i do now are for chicks who want pics for their portfolios. the majority of the chick-pics i take now are ones im involved with and are more related to porn.
i havent used artificial lighting, other than on-camera flash... and maybe a slave flash, rarely...in years. i do photography for fun and the work setting up all the lighting... and wiring ... and/or remote frequencies...and fucking around with a light meter...while the model/s is/are sitting around getting bored...makes the whole thing not fun. by using an on-camera flash then aiming the direction of the bounce of the flash. the locations are pretty much as i find them, then i orient the models position and the camera position how the natural light catches the scene. ill try to do shoots close to sunrise/sunset to get the most 'pleasing' light.
the self-pic im doing for the collage is going to have one of my shadow-lighting experiments. if i can get the chick who already said she'd do the pic to actually do it. -
2017-08-03 at 2:51 AM UTC...
-
2017-08-03 at 2:53 AM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 2:57 AM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 3:02 AM UTCi find this the best site for upping pix now
https://postimages.org/
once you've upped, click on the small version of the pic on the left, a bigger version will load. then just right click > view image on the larger pic, then use the url from that pic that loads from view image. that url will end in .jpg/png etc.
. -
2017-08-03 at 3:18 AM UTCthat site seems to have worked
thats an example of lighting. the exact same pic with one using ambient light the other using a single flash that i bounced off the ceiling. -
2017-08-03 at 3:30 AM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 3:33 AM UTCshe looks brown or lightish skinned black in the second one lol
. -
2017-08-03 at 3:37 AM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 3:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock the left was a flash…the right was ambient light coming through a small window.
shes white.
right, i see. i took all those sharp flashes of light running down her ass, back and leg to be from the flash. just shows i really still got a lot to learn here. i guess it does make sense actually, the flash would completely light up every little corner of the whole room for that quick moment. the window tho just giving a little streak of light from just one specific direction. it is amazing just how complicated light and shadow can be, very fascinating subject.
. -
2017-08-03 at 3:44 AM UTCalso, i could see she's white, i just meant the light had given it that effect tho.
.
