Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobokenkitchen
This is clearly going to be an unpopular opinion, but I think it's an ok idea.
The thing is it needs to be MUCH more subtle.
|
I actually completely agree with you on both counts!
It's difficult to programmatically replicate the work you need to do in Photoshop in the camera to make the images look natural. For example, this photo:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.stylelist...0bes031611.jpg
-Skin is too mask-like. It has the texture of ceramic. The original photo has a lot of complex golden and rose tones which are lost in the altered version. When you see models in magazines, their skin has a luminescent quality to it, because the natural golden, rose, and/or cocoa-brown tones in their faces are preserved.
-Agreed, teeth are too white. My dentist sells veneers (albeit reluctantly, he only gives them to people who truly "need" them, e.g. those who have badly damaged teeth), and the veneers are blends of grey and yellow, like human teeth. These photo-altered "veneers" are much too white.
-There is funny business going on with the woman's facial structure. Her eye sockets are pushed back in the altered version, and the eyeshadow does not follow the natural lines of the eyelids. Her cheekbones are also off-center in the altered version and the blush does not follow the cheek lines.
There are many things wrong with this photo:
Beautytiptoday.com: New Casio Camera Automatically Airbrushes Photos And Makes You Picture Perfect
but one of the biggest ones is the woman's eyes. Her eye sockets have been completely altered, giving her eyes an "anime-like" quality that does not look human.
It's a combination of things that make it creepy to me, not just one specific factor. The photos' subjects lost their "human" feel.