How to deal with half-open eyes?

[rexbobcat]

Hey after you saying there is a line to be drawn regarding photo manipulation I was just wondering where that line is and who sets it? I know all about liquify and how its used deceptively by photo editors. Im just confused after you manipulate an image so its not the same as the original, just how far can you go? Its just that you sounded a bit sanctimonious when you said photo manipulation was a disgrace to the trade. Some would say what you do is too much. When it comes to Photoshop I love it and I dont really think there is a line that has to be drawn. After all if a photo stops looking like a photo then its obvious to all who see it and no deception. Your slimming with liquify might still look like a photo but its done deceptively. When I look at a photo/painting at least I know what Im looking at instead of getting screwed around by a deceptive image created with a Photoshop plugin.

Tirediron there is a software called Perfect365. I dont know if it will help you but it does amazing things with faces and eye manipulation is one of the things it does really well. Subtle yet well done and all automatically.

All hail...oh...wait...who are you?

[Ads]

[Bynx]

When you digitally alter an image it is to make it look better. In other words, its to deceive the viewer into believing a different reality. At what point is too much digital altering? You havent stated where the line is and who draws that line. And shape shifting is far different than just cloning over a mole. A mole sticks out if it was left on. With it off nobody is going to say there should be a mole there. But altering someones shape is producing a fake reality because its done so as not to be noticed. Over processed images are just that and obvious to anyone who looks at them so how are they a disgrace to the trade. I think deceptive advertising is a worse crime. I think there should be a whole thread about this because its on a lot of peoples minds. Sophia Loren was my dream girl most of my life. I once had to Photoshop her neck which showed very prominently for a portrait of her wearing the advertisers glasses. It was 11 hours before final approval. Now when it was finished you couldnt tell she looked like a turkey. Was that photo still a photo or was it digital art? How much is too much?

Following people around David is called stalking. I dont like it.

[Garbz]

At what point is too much digital altering? You havent stated where the line is and who draws that line.

The line is where the artist believes it should be, and the artist alone decides where that line is unless under commission in which case the client decides. But this is all moot. I wonder if you would still have this same opinion if you painted the eyes half closed of aristocrat back in the 1600s, just as your head topples off the guillotine.

Photo manipulation is common, it is a mainstay of the industry. We are the people who make the others happy by giving them what they want. What they want 99% of the time is a picture of themselves looking pretty and not some excuse about photo manipulation when they point out the photo has a fat roll hanging out from under an unfortunately positioned bra or because they couldn't open their eyes for some reason.

If you work for the police and want a forensically authentic image, go your hardest, but the supposed trade which we "disgrace" is mostly full of people likely to disagree with you.

[Bynx]

Garbz have you followed this from the beginning or are you just stepping in not knowing what has been said previously?

[Forkie]

[tirediron]

Okay, before this gets any further out of hand...