While it may be true that beauty is only skin deep as you can see beauty is such a transient thing.

It may only be a while before we incorporate this technology into professional photography to make photographic sessions and portraits "enhanced".

CLICK HERE! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLmSUhyySLI)

Maybe we could even give people a preview regarding what their dream change might look like...

Comments?

Back when I was working with the public relations group in the late 1990's we had Adobe Photoshop and any time we sent a picture out for a brochure or a meeting announcment or an article, we fixed scraggly hair, removed zits and blemishes and liver spots, pinked-up the fluorescent lights, and usually stretched the height by 10% over the width. I would never send a photograph out to be published that wasn't retouched and "prettied-up"

I used to do it for family members when they wanted something to hang on the wall like a portrait or the kids together.

My old avatar -- the red head muscle boy with a giant endowment and no balls -- was all photoshop. I even captioned it as my dream, my wish.

And yes, there are a few adjustments to my face on the left. It's not inaccurate or misleading. I do look like that.

I have a small tattoo on my shoulder and since I knew the tattoo artist, I saw his book of "adult" tattoos. These are the guys who paid for their tattoos with their bodies and were standing around naked and erect. I can tell you that recently I've seen three of those tattoos on the internet (that makes the picture nearly 20 years old) and fantastically endowed. Photoshop strikes again.

Almost every picture I see on the internet has been touched-up in some way.

With all of that, why bother taking a picture. By the end you don't have a photograph.

kristoff wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:01 pm With all of that, why bother taking a picture. By the end you don't have a photograph.

O.K., I give up.

Whose face is that on your avatar?

kristoff wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2013 5:01 pm With all of that, why bother taking a picture. By the end you don't have a photograph.

Photographs are images printed on light sensitive paper via physical analog (film) media and light through a glass lens, thus forming said images.

What we have to today is not photography; it is digital creation resulting in electronic imagery, which, even when seldom put to paper, is still not a photograph, but a digitally constructed image.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2013 6:43 pm O.K., I give up.

Whose face is that on your avatar?

Mine, cut and paste.

My first digital camera was a Sony with the floppy disc. Just point and shoot, OK it had a timer so I could be in the photo. The film camera I got the best pictures with was an Argus C3 brick. It made you adjust the aperature, shutter speed, (silicon light meter, no batteries) focus in one sight and frame in another. I never did as well with the SLR cameras. My last three phones have had 8mp cameras. I still go to the camera shop to get photos for my albums, I seldom photo shop but I do crop my photos occasionally.

I like the new digital photography, it allows you to see the photo in an instant. I have used it to sell my Jeep and fish tanks, one guy wanted more information and additional pictures, done.

Film had its day and in some ways I will always miss that but taking a picture then having to wait to see if it was ok, and if not, you might not be able to try again.

I know for my friend Paolo its not the same but for me I would never go back.

River

I used to take pictures for the entire family when my brother's kids were growing. So that meant two sets of prints and multiple exposure of the same shot because some kid had their eyes closed to their finger up their nose.

Cost me a fortune in 3x5's and then they asked for 4x6's… cost more.

When I got a digital camera, I loaded the pictures into a computer and wrote out a cd-roms for about a buck apiece and picked the pictures on a computer screen. cheaper by a long shot.

When I got photoshop, all sorts of nice things happened. Mostly color balance got adjusted because of having incandescent and florescent lighting on one roll of film.

I still like single lens reflex cameras with film. Why (you ask)? because a 35mm negative can be blown up to 16" by 20" or like my landscape on my dining room wall 24x36 inches… Most of the digital stuff won't enlarge like that.

This is coming from someone that went to school for photography: Digital is great for ease of use and if you need to have a fast turnaround. In my opinion, digital does not lend itself well or taken as seriously when it comes to fine art photography, or at least I don't. To me digital almost seems lazy. I studied under both film and digital cameras, darkroom and digital printing. I became a master printer of black & white and color in the darkroom as well as digitally. In my opinion there is still something that digital is missing in image quality as compared to film, especially black & white. However, scanning a black & white negative at at the highest dpi in a drum scanner, then making a digital print gives one an image almost indistinguishable from a darkroom print, and you can print extremely large. Taking a digital photograph and turning it black and white, you just don't get the same detail, texture, and contrast in the image. They both have there purpose and uses, but why everyone is jumping ship wholeheartedly into digital and leaving film behind, I just will never understand. There has to be enough fine art photographer's out there to keep film as a product afloat for a while longer. And yes. I miss the darkroom like crazy. I wanted to be a fine art black & white darkroom or digital printer, but that is nearly impossible today. Now everyone with an iPhone camera thinks they are fine art photographers. I think I just had the bad luck of being born at the end of Photography, as we know it, as an art form. Photography I'm afraid is nearly dead. Digital is completely taking over. With digital you don't have to get your hands dirty. You don't have to think about a photo before you take it, because you have thousands of images you can take, not just a few rolls of film. I am afraid I spent all that money on my education for naught.