Not looking to open up new can of worms, just get technical advice...

[Alex_B]

Hmm, interesting. Perhaps that is what 'GEM' does stand for in this case - you learn something new every day. But I do know this filter (which can be found here: http://www.asf.com/products/) is becoming rather popular with some portrait photographers.

looked up that page, yes, it is exactly the algorithms i mentioned. All that ICE, ROC, GEM things are usually applied by the scan software.

Didn't know they are now also used to smoothen skin

 

[Peacemaker636]

I think it's safe to say that JenPena has "opened a new can of worms".

 

[ericande]

Want to see how "plastic" people are created professionally?

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/home_films_evolution_v2.swf

 

[tulie]

I thought you might like this photographer...

http://www.jinkyart.com.au/

and you and other people might like these tutorials on how to do the questions you ask...

Mama's Makeover Part 1

Mama's Makeover Part 2

http://www.photoshopmama.net/chores/tip_2_06/mamas_makeover_part3/mamas_makeover_part3.html

 

[Orgnoi1]

Firstly, Azuth I hate to say this but I believe you should remove those images from your site. You never know how an individual might react to you 'stealing' (even though we all know those aren't your intentions) images from her site - especially seeing as this thread is very accesible by her if she searches her web address.

I cant believe that this is the first comment like this... it is illegal (and immoral) to take someones images and repost them on your website without the original copyright holder's permission...:thumbdown:

 

[Azuth]

Ooh, surely we can do better than one thumbs down. First 'stealing' then 'illegal'. Perhaps you might like to read this? With particular reference to the reproduction of work for the purpose of critique or comment, though various other provisions also apply. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Maybe I have it wrong? Perhaps there's a lawyer online willi to prosecute, they should get started on the extradition process straight away.

I reckon there's good reason why it was so long before it got a comment like that.

If we can move on from illegal we can look at immoral. Let's just make sure we get the context right.

Yes folks, I did it, I admit it; With willful intent I copied two images from the flash gallery of another photographer and saved them as jpg files in a place where I could reference them online. I did blatantly save said images in a non-searchable directory my web server and further did name them without permission to the name of the photographer who is credited with the creation of those very same images.

I then did wantonly reference by way of text hyperlink those images in a discussion thread which was started for the express purpose of commenting on the work and techniques employed by the poor unfortunate photographer, the contents of the thread and posts at that point leaving it beyond doubt the identity of the rightful image owner, the victim of my heinous and remorseless attack.

Yes folks, lock up your daughters, delete your web pages, flee from myspace and shun my online existence or you might be next!

Perhaps one day I will repent and join those happy few tpf guardians of the right and just in the smashing of elementary school photocopiers, lest some insane teacher pass a photocopy of a David Bailey photograph around a group of nine year olds and consign them all to the pits of hell!



A little much?

 

[Orgnoi1]

Your response only strengthens my previous answer... and shows your lack of professionalism. I hope your post was worth it, as I am sure it was extremely difficult to just ask for permission to use the images...

 

[Whippersnappers]

you use a 50? on full frame or on crop? I have a 50 on full frame, but it sometimes appears to short for me. I do not have a dedicated portrait lens yet.

I have a whopping 3 lenses... my 50mm 1.8, an 80-200 2.8 and the 18-70. I use the 50 more than anything. I use the 80-200 for length when I need it, the 18-70 for those wides, but I love the speed of the 50 and the shallow dof it delivers. It's my oldest and favorite. I am absolutely sure that I use it WAY too much, as a matter of fact. Keep in mind that I am a portrait photographer though and I have issues with change. :er:

I thought you might like this photographer...

http://www.jinkyart.com.au/

OMG! I love her work. Thanks for the link!

 

[Azuth]

An interesting point of view. There's an Australian saying that springs to mind, but I'm not sure it will transition well. It's "Take your hand off it."

I didn't want permission to use the images, the context and reason behind why I linked to the images in the way I did was very clear. It would appear that in the views of most reasonable people it was a warranted and acceptable act. The comments of 2 people out of the 500+ that viewed this thread caused me to pull the images, not because I agreed with those 2, but because we obviously live in a world gone mad.

You are right, I could have asked for permission, and I seriously considered doing so when I read the post by Peanuts. I then realised it was akin to those people that would have us beleive a photographer should get a release from every person in a candid street photograph or never take a photo of a persion in a public place without first asking permission.

Those very actions, that mindset, takes away from rights and freedoms that exist and should be fought for. If too many people listen to those 'nay sayers' then new common practice is adopted, and eventually becomes law.

I didn't see you make a previous answer, just pass judgement. If my blowing off a bit of steam in the bowels of a discussion forum at midnight on a Monday is seen as unprofessional then I'll live with it. I stand behind my actions, and I had great fun writing that post.

My sincerest apologies for the derailing of this thread.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Ooh, surely we can do better than one thumbs down. First 'stealing' then 'illegal'. Perhaps you might like to read this? With particular reference to the reproduction of work for the purpose of critique or comment, though various other provisions also apply. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Maybe I have it wrong? Perhaps there's a lawyer online willi to prosecute, they should get started on the extradition process straight away.

I reckon there's good reason why it was so long before it got a comment like that.

If we can move on from illegal we can look at immoral. Let's just make sure we get the context right.

Yes folks, I did it, I admit it; With willful intent I copied two images from the flash gallery of another photographer and saved them as jpg files in a place where I could reference them online. I did blatantly save said images in a non-searchable directory my web server and further did name them without permission to the name of the photographer who is credited with the creation of those very same images.

I then did wantonly reference by way of text hyperlink those images in a discussion thread which was started for the express purpose of commenting on the work and techniques employed by the poor unfortunate photographer, the contents of the thread and posts at that point leaving it beyond doubt the identity of the rightful image owner, the victim of my heinous and remorseless attack.

Yes folks, lock up your daughters, delete your web pages, flee from myspace and shun my online existence or you might be next!

Perhaps one day I will repent and join those happy few tpf guardians of the right and just in the smashing of elementary school photocopiers, lest some insane teacher pass a photocopy of a David Bailey photograph around a group of nine year olds and consign them all to the pits of hell!

:lmao:

Very good, Azuth. Not too much at all.

Orgnoi, there are cases where it's ok to just let it go.

Laws are not dogma. They are ever-evolving, esp. in this digital world, and this particular application was in no way intended to make a profit of someone elses work. And to call it IMMORAL is just a little over the top.