http://giganticmag.com/images/ilx/breastpop.gif
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:34 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost "Anything more than a handful and you're just gunna sprain a thumb"
― kingfish pibb Xtra (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 9 January 2006 03:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 9 January 2006 04:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 9 January 2006 04:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Monday, 9 January 2006 09:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― RJG (RJG), Monday, 9 January 2006 09:23 (eighteen years ago) link
Thing is, it's kind of irrellevant when the people making the ad have no way to predict the color in any given magazine. There's a standard called SWOP, or Standard Web Offset Press I think, that everyone works from, and within that , there's something like a 15 percent difference in color that is allowed. For instance if you make an ad where you think the girls skin looks nice, in one magazine it may look reddish and in another it may look blueish...and it's not the magazine's fault. Good retouchers keep this in mind, you can take 2 versions of the same ad that look identical, but the mixture/balance of colors underneath the main colors are different in a way not noticeable right away, but one solution will drift more then the other.
Color is an imperfect art.
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Monday, 9 January 2006 15:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Monday, 9 January 2006 16:29 (eighteen years ago) link
I posed the question because whenever you're printing an image, in any medium, you adjust the colour pretty much everytime. Does simply adjusting for poor lighting or funky shadows count as retouching?
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 01:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 01:37 (eighteen years ago) link
Ok, it's less dramatic:
For yellow, magenta, and cyan, the range is generally+/- 0.02. For black, it is +/- 0.04.
But that can have a big effect depending on the colors. The example I was shown was an ad that had a mostly flat greyish field. In one magazine it was noticeably magenta/purple, in the other, blue. And these were like, Time, the New Yorker, Business Week etc.
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:03 (eighteen years ago) link
It's an issue for everyone, because you can't call the level of, say, magenta like you can a spot color, by Pantone number or the like. If only.
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― emilys. (emilys.), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― emilys. (emilys.), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:55 (eighteen years ago) link
tyra, no?
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 04:00 (eighteen years ago) link
i wonder how much of the retouching she'd have noticed had they not shown her the before and after shots. vanity, yo.
― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 04:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:11 (eighteen years ago) link
We realize that pretty instinctually about parts of advertising but are naturally more resistant to it when it comes to renovating humans -- and to be honest I think it would be ridiculously depressing to live in a world where we were all so sophisticated about advertising that we didn't even trust faces to be faces anymore.
NB have any of you read any of the recent stuff about HDTV worries with regard to this stuff? All that new clarify/definition has raised the bar such that facial stuff that wasn't previously evident on television -- pores, moles, scars, etc -- now shows up like a monument on giant plasma widescreen HDTVs, potentially in larger than life size. A lot of actors are pretty spooked by this, particularly when it comes to stuff like talk-show appearances, where you don't get all the good lighting and well-angled shots. I was reading something or other where a TV critic pointed out that this run-of-the-mill "character-building" scar on Brad Whitford's forehead looks, in close-up HD, like a gaping wound.
― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― She's been known to sleep on piles of dry leaves... (papa november), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:47 (eighteen years ago) link
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio28.html
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― She's been known to sleep on piles of dry leaves... (papa november), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:04 (eighteen years ago) link
although sir mix-a-lot brought quite a few dissenters out of that closet.
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:10 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm not sure this convention is particularly true in general, leave alone for an ass-out thong picture of Kelis from what looks like King or something. If anything I'm surprised they didn't fill her out more than that.
― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:36 (eighteen years ago) link
Damn, that is two ILXers to envy on that score.
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:52 (eighteen years ago) link
This happened to me when I saw Batman Begins at the imax. The screen is so huge you can see every little flaw and mark on each actor, to the point where they became grotesque. It was very distracting! I don't think I'd see a regular movie at the imax again.
― Lars and Jagger (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:34 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:43 (eighteen years ago) link
what about dove's "real women" ads? the first time i saw them, i thought, "those are not the kind of "real women" i see every day," because they're all still gorgeous and i doubt any of them was over a size 12, but i'm sure they've been retouched, etc, so i don't feel quite so bad.
the coolest example of the unretouched woman was when jamie lee curtis did that spread with no makeup in her underwear and showed everyone how imperfect she was.
― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link
They were all on Oprah in their underwear over the holidays and still looked exactly like that ad, so I think it's mostly makeup as opposed to hardcore retouching.
― Dan (Also The Largest Woman I Think Is A 10) Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:45 (eighteen years ago) link