Photoshop fails!
In an effort to improve my Photoshop skills I've been spending some time on the internet following tutorials, some are good and some... well not so good.
This one yesterday cracked me up. The photographer is from Spain and his tutorial was on recreating Catholic confirmation photos for adults who didn't like the ones from when they were kids. He uses his Photoshop skills pretty liberally!
I suspect there is money to be made by re-visiting old wedding albums to delete the ex-spouse and insert the new one. Now pretend you never made that poor judgement.
I doubt the new spouse would be happy with the result.
One of my early 'shops. I called 'em beheadings, cuz I only messed w/the heads/faces.
This a girl from Momdigr's church dressed as Britney Spears for Halloween. She wanted Mom to take her picture. She did, and then I put Popdigr's face over hers and sent it to her.
I called it "The Ugliest Little Girl Ever".
ETA: Those ears are hers.
Chris's pic reminds me of those horrible HS Senior pics where they'd be standing there with one leg propped on a stool (usually with leisure jacket swung over their shoulder, looking at the camera) then there'd be another pic of the same guy, in the same pic, walking into the scene. Like "this guy's deep, he has two distinctly different sides."
My friends and I laughed at those guys. What, your twin accidentally walked into the frame when you were getting your 'casual' shot taken?
What's that called: The Many Faces of Heroin?
Eyes. A green one and a brown one.
It's not the different colors, that ain't so rare...it's the fact that one of them is like ten thousand times bigger than the other one, and placed oddly on the face.
Maybe she had her eye knocked out in a horrible playstation accident, and that's the best they could do.
...I'll keep my eye out for you!
The only reason you guys noticed her eyes is because her tits weren't in the picture.:D
You know why men find it so tough to make eye contact with women?
Because tits don't have eyes.
If you're done looking at the chart, gentlemen ...
I would guess that since the eyeball lady's picture is watermarked from gimps.de that the unhairy eyeball is probably glass. Or maybe plastic. But definitely aftermarket, not original. It's not tracking with the right one.
I'm Cindi. With an eye.
Looks like Natalie Portman.
If you're done looking at the chart, gentlemen ...
I would guess that since the eyeball lady's picture is watermarked from gimps.de that the unhairy eyeball is probably glass. Or maybe plastic. But definitely aftermarket, not original. It's not tracking with the right one.
Here I was all set to check out twisted amputee/missing eye pr0n and the website is devoted to the open source photoshop knock-off, GIMP.
Curse you Red Barron!
You might as well have Rick rolled me.
Isn't that heroin three-fer actually Mickey Rourke?
At first, I was like, "Well, that's stupid." But then I saw something else...that looked familiar. Sorta.
That would be a great candid camera bit. Take a woman in full muslim garb - with just the eye slit - and have a portrait painted.:)
At first, I was like, "Well, that's stupid." But then I saw something else...that looked familiar. Sorta.
the top pic is a bansky
I'm not completely sure this photo is 'shopped. But, I ain't convinced it ain't either. It's an AP pic, so, Ima assume it's legit. But, it
looks like the single worst PS evah. No shadows, anywhere, from anything? There should be a shadow, somewhere. Shouldn't there?
This pic is enlarged 200%, but the original pic isn't any better.
Here's the actual story.
there's a shadow behind that tree
There's a shadow on the backside of that tree. (FIFY)
Given the shadow on the backside (opposite the sunlit side) of the tree, shouldn't there be some on the ground?
there are no shadows visible when the camera is close enough to the axis of the light source and the subject. That's one reason on-camera flash photos look so shitty
when threads collide:
Just saw this while scheduling a Purple Heart Pick up:
Fill in the information below:
Fields with an astrick (*) are required.
ass-trick ....har har har
[ATTACH]38402[/ATTACH]
OK, the loco's running gear might blur/warp/generally look wrong due to certain quirks of digital cameras, but...that smoke coming out of the loco's stack is just, uh, um, :headshake.
Think of the pressure required to make the steam/exhaust/whatever shoot straight up like that, at speed. The plume should be bent back over the top of the loco to an extent, shouldn't it? Maybe I'm having a stroke.
Here's the sum of my knowledge of trains, btw: They're big, long, and loud.
Don't know how fast this was going. But it's on a curve, so maybe a little slower than normal.
[ATTACH]38413[/ATTACH]
this one looks like it's in a switching yard, so maybe it's slow too.
[ATTACH]38414[/ATTACH]
Here's one that looks closest to the fake picture.
[ATTACH]38415[/ATTACH]
Enough. Here's a panning shot of a speeding locomotive. Note the areas that are blurred.
[ATTACH]38416[/ATTACH]
I don't see something that screams "fake". I see an exhaust plume that is moving in the right direction, straight up and big. How far "bent over" it is or should be is all a factor of how fast the engine's moving. I do know enough about photography to know that the blur you see is intentional, and intended to give the viewer a sense of speed. But making that blur is pretty easy and doesn't require HIGH speed (though it looks like they're haulin ass). If anything, the exhaust belies a super high speed shot, and instead is just a real picture, with a relatively slow exposure at sane speeds making it easier and safer to shoot.
The black "smoke" is what you get out of one of the standard brushes, and somebody did this freehand. The gradient/blur around the edges is extremely uniform. And it's identical on the front and back of the plume.
If you look in the rear window of the car, you will see that someone forgot to apply movement blur to the third wheel.
A lot of stuff in the middle was pushed around using the smudge tool.
Vindication.
[ATTACH]38428[/ATTACH]
I takes mah victrees where I finds 'em.
:D
This is the part that bothers me. The smoke doesn't come all the way from the front of the pipe (unless the pipe is many inches thick...and a different thickness at the front than it is at the back) and then, at that so-fast-it's-blurry speed, the smoke goes forward at first, then decides to lean back. Also, the going forward smoke hadn't decided to be blurry yet. I'm no physicist, but I'd imagine Bernoulli turning over in his grave as we try to explain this acrobatic smoke. This jet ƒucking black smoke, made of pure hexadecimal #000000.
Oh, and also, the entire photo just screams "ridiculously, stupidly fake."
It's the moster from Lost, currently guest starring as a baby in Game of Thrones.
This.:lol2:
[ATTACH]45298[/ATTACH]
MS Paint, not Photoshop.
[COLOR="LemonChiffon"]...[/COLOR]
Now take a look at the original post and tell me which one fails harder.
I saw...I just found the correction funny also.
Aaand I just wanted to give ya a bit of a poke.
:D
Aaand I just wanted to give ya a bit of a poke.
:D
I'll poke you in the eye, you ƒucker.
With my cock.
Then we can see things 'eye to eye' . . . lol