Added: 6 months ago
From: modiexy
Views: 56,719
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (70)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • its so sexist how all of these feminist always say "its affecting girls". As if men don't have any pressure to look good, and as if men don't look at magazines where there's an unrealistic sense of beauty. Many psychologist actually think that many men are dissatisfied with their penis size because of pornography.

  • you cant ban it. you can ban photoshop, rather regulate what people do with photoshop.

    Furthermore, you wouldnt be able to prove what has and has not been "shopped" and there would be cases with highly attractive models, they would say that the REAL pictures are too good, because of how attractive they are. out of control, yes. BUT there is no way to control it. The reality is that there is no more reality in this society. everything is fake and unobtainable, great for business... sadly... ugh.

  • @Sc0ttPrian No, theres plenty. Just not on TV, where there never was. Thats the whole point, its supposed to be interesting. And real life isnt interesting.

    Its pretty ignorant to pretend we didnt just step out of the age of braziers and corsets.

    Besides, even if there was no photoshop, most people are ugly, will always be ugly, and could never achieve a certain look no matter how much they try. To assume that anyone should be able to be beautiful is wishful thinking at best.

  • @callowaymotorcompany I'm not really one to talk anyway.. I have the tools to edit music to the same point. For the music industry, if it isn't perfect, who would buy it? However, good music doesn't seem to depress people as much as apparent good looks.

    without photoshop, people would only have imagination of what "perfection" looks like. but, like I said, I'm not one to talk.. I suppose..

  • blah...

  • 0Adamheartmother0 : All the money in the world couldn't save your dog. hahaha

  • Adamheartmom makes clients pinhole cameras out of "logs of wood". hahaha Fucking moron.

  • @multibigpop Your actually a retarded kid, I know it is really hard to fathom that kind of workmanship and creativity, which is why your a horrible photographer, but it can be done my little friend.

  • "Your"? You don't even understand what a possessive is. Can it be done with a "log of wood"?

  • @multibigpop Anyways pumpkin, this has really been fun, I have to get back to the shop, let me know when your stuck on your project, I have to go make some money. Peace

  • I used to get allowance, too. Now I have a real job. hahahaha

  • @multibigpop Paper boy eh? Sweet was your allowance 400$ a day for doing what you love? Oh and not to mention did you have a day job on top of the allowance that is a starting 50,000$ a year contract? Fuck it's sweet to be you man, now I know how you could afford that 6 000$ Horseman and Hasselblad, oh and you just bought a new guitar too? No way you paid 10 000$ for a vintage strat? Fuck I wish I was you man, I am gonna go back to my little 120/35 mm shooter while you live the dream, peace

  • My guitar isn't a strat. But it IS made from a "log of wood". hahahaha

  • @multibigpop Sears guitars are plastic dude relax, one day you will be where I am, one day.

  • Most assuredly made from a "log" that came from "wood". hahahaha

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 Sears guitars are plastic, dude, relax. One day, you will be where I am... one day.***

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 10,000 Dollar Strat, lol. Look here, son, Strats are one of the, IF NOT, the most produced guitar in history. If you actually paid ten thousand dollars for one, you must have bought it because Hendrix, or SRV looked at it, and you fell for the scam. Rattling off accomplishments (fake accomplishments) makes you look like a total tool. Just sayin'. LOG OV WUD

  • @OfEternalDespair First of all I wouldn't call them accomplishments I would just call it perks of being born into a wealthy family and having the money to build a business and get what I enjoy. Second, 10K is a steal for a vintage fender, you should really do some research on your shit before you talk, they can get up to 50 000$ and it has nothing to do with any iconic musicians "looking" at the guitar, I am going to send you some links so you don't make yourself look like an idiot in the future

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 You paid ten grand for a guitar I could build for less than a grand. I don't give a single fuck what the headstock says, Fender, Gibson, Cocksucker, whatever, quality is quality, regardless of name. You're the idiot who played into the name game, and now you have a 10k piece of alder. Congrats, moron.

  • Fun Fact: Alder is a different form of "log of wood."

  • 21 years old<Doesn't understand what a possessive is<Says "log of wood"<Thinks pinhole cameras are hard to make<Scoffs at digital technology<Uploaded film scans by use of digital technology<Looks like it was filmed with a potato. Man, quit while you're behind.

  • @multibigpop You can't even begin once again to comprehend where I was going with the last one, have fun kid.

  • Mind blown by your powerful mind that apparently can't muster up the power to use possessives when they are supposed to be used. haha

  • What's with the huge lens? Get a 50mm and move up....unless you want a 2 dimensional image...

  • The fuck are you talking about? Longer focal length doesn't give an illusion of flatness, unless you're shooting with absolute shit (sears lens of any kind). And the point of a longer focal length is so the photographer can be less intrusive on A: light setups and B: the model.

  • @multibigpop Intrusive? Turn your flash units up a bit there is no need to bring your light set up closer. This is the problem with new age digital photographers, you all think you know everything, and all seem to be assholes. I will stick to my Rollei, Hassey, and Horseman, max 80mm lens, have fun trying to replicate that quality with your so called "quality" digital cameras, that still no matter what you do produce a flat image with horrible depth of field with that big of a lens.

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 Implying I shoot digital at all. That was just stupid, considering the same rules stood when film was the big boom and there were more options that didn't only consist of prime lenses. I shoot 120, and I am in the middle of creating a wooden box (like the brownie) with a lens mount as both a medium format and 35mm shooter (cropping math based on lens register distance from focal plane involved). So take that "film" snob-shit elsewhere.

  • @multibigpop Good job kid let me know if you need a hand I just finished my first 8x10, had an old Nikkor-W 300mm f5.6 lying around and a couple extra hours a day so what the hell? Also I build custom pinholes that allow for polaroid, 35mm, 120, and 220, so take that camera building snob shit elsewhere.

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 Odd, because I have built plenty of pinholes. Those are simplistic. Well, more technical than a digital camera. But still not as hard as you seem to be implying. Shit, high schoolers make those for school projects. But alright. The fact that you even used the word "custom" and "pinholes" in the same sentence tells me you're trying too hard to pretend you understand what you're saying. hahah

  • @multibigpop Custom meaning clients tell me exactly what they want and I produce it. The last one I did was out of a log of wood, one before was a model car. It's really easy to get a little cardboard box...

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 You're an idiot. Your friends and family don't count as clients.

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 Enjoy your super long focal length and your super slow aperture. I am sure you'll catch plenty of action with either your super slow shutter, or your super high ISO. Enjoy your grain and blur, asshole.

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 "Custom pinholes that allow polaroid 35,120,220". Implying polaroid film somehow loads differently than other films of the same format when used with pinholes.

  • @multibigpop Are you fucking kidding me? You have no idea what the fuck your talking about it's official. 

  • @0AdamHeartMother0 Also depends on the intended softening or light spread effect in terms of light distance away from models, or subjects such as vehicles. So, you can't always move the light setup closer. And again, it's also about being less intrusive to the model while shooting. Sharpness (the opposite of flatness) also comes from your chemical processes, too. Clearly you must be a hipster. Let me guess, you cross-process all of your film?

  • @multibigpop No actually I shoot mostly colour slides processed properly with E6, the only time I use D76 is at home because I don't usually shoot negatives. I have to ship most of my film to Britain because I shoot a lot of Scala (I am sure you have no idea) and there is no where else left to process it. Thank God my grandfather was sponsored by Kodak and Agfa so I have a few freezers full of film left over...

  • 4:52 Your also welcome

  • no it should not be banned

  • There's nothing really new here. 30 years ago we called it "Airbrush"

    And where do you think the term "Cut and Paste" came from.

    Photoshop is just the latest greatest tool to do digitally in a few hours what used to take days in the darkroom.

    new technology but the principles are still the same.

  • Her color looked bad but that was the photograph. He just got rid of garbage the camera produces.

  • @CastleOfButterflies you mean garbage that poor lighting techniques of the photographer produces. Really, many of these photographers working on big contracts for these magazines aren't hired for their talent as photographers but as editors and retouchers, not that the retoucher is always involved with taking the photo. Its more about producing a "usable" image that can then be edited to bits.

  • @MarlowWhere Implying it takes talent to use liquify, curves, levels, LAB, or anything else in photoshop.

  • @multibigpop I think it really all depends on what you are using photoshop for.

  • @MarlowWhere So, you're insinuating that using the exact same effects in photoshop for two different projects takes more talent? Even if one of the projects is more time consuming, or intricate, it means nothing in terms of whether photoshop is hard to use or whether it actually takes any talent to use.

  • @multibigpop I feel like you are agreeing with me. My point was that given a larger sized project and more "pitfalls" to work around using photoshop becomes more of a skill...and most certainly is a skill. I am no entirely comfortable with the amount of editing some people do in post, but I wont deny that it takes an intricate knowledge of the program(s) they use to edit.

  • @MarlowWhere Well, THAT can't be argued with. I was just saying once you have that understanding, it's not very hard at all (like anything anyone learns, I suppose).

  • @multibigpop But I can see why some would see retouching as illegitimate, while editing a photo for artistic purposes is deemed ok (though still questionable for some people). I think retouchers have a completely different knowledge of photoshop and its purpose than someone who is just trying to make their photo look "different." I guess that's why I can respect, and question, what they do because their knowledge of editing is encompassing, though their purpose is to correct content, not style.

  • The retouching that is done sometimes just fixes flaws that show up on camera. You have to remember that photography flattens things out a bit, and in order to make things appear more lifelike, shadows sometimes have to be added, removed. At certain angles in real life, you don't have bags under your eyes. In this particular photo, the shadows cast underneath her eyes made her appear older. So to make her look more realistic, the shadows were removed. He improved the photo, not her appearance.

  • I think it's like smoking, if you need to be told that this is fake(that smoking is dangerous) This you're probably too stupid to get by anyway.

  • stop at 3:38 ur welcome

  • Oh i looked her looking amazed that she's gonna be retouched like Hollywood stars and i say "hey what's wrong with her!?" And so what she will??But this is because i'm used to that, i have the best photos of myself on the internet and everywhere...because..........­........i am the PhotoShopper baby...its cool!! And btw,i keep on saying to ppl the same as he said!!"Tell me what you want,and i can do EVERYTHING!!<3

  • I feel with new technology comes new and better ways of doing things. Photography should be no different.

  • Comment removed

  • Very SAD ONLY!!!!!!!

  • ....... this world is sad

  • No way...

  • magazines and model agencies tell me ...do not fix anything ...we have staff to do it ...its what im told all the time

  • she doesnt need photoshop shes fucking gorgeous anyway

  • @silentfox8 disagree, emma watson is the girl

  • Ban it. Children die from eating disorders because they want to look like the person on the cover of whatever magazine they are looking at. Celebrities should be role models, not blatant liars who are too insecure to be human.

  • @MrWrong0307 its not like they are making fat people look skinny. They are making already fit people look even better. Plus. if there were legislation to ban retouching, then I'm sure we would run into the problem of ignorant politicians creating laws that would make any editing of a photo, at least for advertising purposes, illegal. The same techniques are used in photos that have nothing to do with models, should they be banned too?

  • @MarlowWhere Sigh. If I had seen this baseless argument prior to my last response to you, I would have just omitted it. Clearly, you're blowing this out of proportion You're turning a simple situation into a convoluted, hypothetical situation.

  • @MrWrong0307 I don't know if you ever hired a professional photographer...but a good majority of them will retouch photos of brides, groom, graduating seniors, etc. This is not just a "problem" in the media. Its everywhere, and many ordinary people expect that when they are photographed that work be done to the photos to make them the most flattering.

  • I'd wreck that.

  • Not banned at all ... No NO No Way!!

  • Well ..... retouchng shoud not be banned , caz after all , this makes the job for us much easier , and make magazine covers much beautiful :P lol BUT but but....... there should be a campain to aware about it :D

  • WOW ur video is amazing :DDDDDD i was wondering how did u do to remove the "Things " under the eye , caz u just press a button :D D thanx plz reply :D ^_^

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more