User Controls
the photoshop fred
-
2017-08-03 at 3:49 AM UTCits interesting where in the first pic you can totally see her asshole in full detail, yet the second you can barely make it out, just a long streak of dark shadow going right down her crack. lol.
. -
2017-08-03 at 4:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist 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.
the 'gloss' is from coconut oil. it gives a shine to skin...but in this pic she only used a little because its messy and i didnt want that crap all over that bed.
the flash was aimed and 'powered' to bounce around and be bright. it could be aimed differently or set to make a lighter flash, giving more shadow or giving different light/shadow effects. -
2017-08-03 at 4:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist 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.
.
No you just overthought it because he said one was ambient and you know that would be the second one. :) -
2017-08-03 at 5:11 AM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 5:15 AM UTCso any of you think the shadowing in the pix i shopped looks ok? or can you notice any fucked up areas?
not sure i'm entirely happy with the shadow down the right side of the first pix(green bikini) tummy area. that's her right side btw.
. -
2017-08-03 at 12:06 PM UTCit looks fine to me. 99% of people wont be able to tell it was photoshopped until/unless someone else points it out to them.
-
2017-08-03 at 12:08 PM UTCThe second one has fat arms and wrists.
-
2017-08-03 at 6:44 PM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 7:17 PM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 7:24 PM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 7:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist definitely this. you prolly wouldn't have noticed had you not seen the before and after to compare.
photographers that have been around enough naked women know what naked women look like...with or without modifications.
i cant remember any published pic of kim crapdashian that ive seen in the last few years that isnt photoshopped to fuck and back.
its virtually impossible to detect professional photoshopping. -
2017-08-03 at 7:58 PM UTC
another example of lighting. the exact same scene taken about 1/32nd of a second apart...the only difference being some camera settings -
2017-08-03 at 8 PM UTChow is that^ done? that can't be down to using just a flash surely?
. -
2017-08-03 at 8:06 PM UTCcolor enhancement of some sort ???
-
2017-08-03 at 8:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist how is that^ done? that can't be down to using just a flash surely?
no...a flash wouldnt work. that was at least a half a mile away.
its too complicated to explain in a post...but the basic settings on all cameras are shutter speed, the lens aperture (the hole size in the lens that lets light in), as well as the ISO settings which determine (in this case) the digital sensors preference on absorbing light. (very simplified explanation)
in a nutshell...the left pic is brighter because the various settings let in more light. the right pic is darker because the various settings didnt let in as much light.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-03 at 8:15 PM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 8:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock no…a flash wouldnt work. that was at least a half a mile away.
its too complicated to explain in a post…but the basic settings on all cameras are shutter speed, the lens aperture (the hole size in the lens that lets light in), as well as the ISO settings which determine (in this case) the digital sensors preference on absorbing light. (very simplified explanation)
in a nutshell…the left pic is brighter because the various settings let in more light. the right pic is darker because the various settings didnt let in as much light.
but the yellow patches looked equally bright on both frames. -
2017-08-03 at 8:25 PM UTC
-
2017-08-03 at 8:45 PM UTChere's a job i did once for Bill Krozby. he asked me to shop out the two other dudes for him from this pic
which i think i did a pretty good job of. i can't see any trace left of them once i'd finished filling in the background, leaving it looking like the two other dudes were never in the picture at all.
i admit i did have to crop away some of the lefthand side of the pic because i fucked it up and it looked weird, but now i think it looks pretty good.
what you guys think? does the background look like it matches the rest of the picture. is there any sign that the other two dudes were ever in the pic to begin with? i'm pretty happy with the way it came out tbh.
. -
2017-08-03 at 8:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock because they were emitting light of their own…they were either outdoor lights or torches. the brighter pic has the yellow areas showing less detail because it was on the verge of being washed out.
i c.
but how you managed to change shutter speed in 1/32 of a sec ??? is it like some special built in function ??
