Amazing Photo

[stephengilbert]

This (http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/Frary/pic290.htm) is said to be a photograph of a woman made up to look like the subject of a painting.

It's sad that "Photoshopping" causes us to doubt such photos, but I'd like to believe it.

 

[Vivek]

Nice one, indeed.

I am not sure about the comment about photoshopping, etc. If an image is to be commented upon, PSing or what gear one used or the techniques involved are the last thing that would come to one's mind. No?

Part of the problem is most web fora are divided among the lines of Nikon, Leica, Canon, Large format, tiny format, etc. Gear and techniques assume a major focus among the participants and focus on the final outcome is often missed- that is my impression.

 

[stephengilbert]

What I meant by "Photoshopping" was not a reference to the program used, but to the practice of altering or doctoring images so that they aren't "real." In this case, creating the image of a painterish woman rather than showing what she looked like. What I found most interesting about the photo was that she was made up to look like that. Making her look like that with post processing isn't less, just different.

If that makes sense.

 

[etrigan63]

I get what you are saying Stephen. More often, shots like these are done in post-production (ie after the shot has been taken) using tools like PS to modify the image, thus making it more a testament to computer skills than photographic ones. I believe this one is shot pre-production (ie: the girl was actually painted to look that way aka old school) and is also a fine example of the makeup artist's work. The photog had the easy job here.

 

[stephengilbert]

Thank you, Carlos. That's what I meant: the woman was a work of art before the picture was taken.

 

[Vivek]

Stephen and Carlos, I did get the point about PS.

What I was wondering about was- what difference does it make to the picture or the impact it may have on a viewer (other than the likes of us in a web fora setting)?

 

[sonomichele]

From the perspective of the image, it probably doesn't matter much how it was made. But it might to the artist.

 

[gogopix]

humans have been painting themselves on all continents for millenia. It either cost 2 rabbits (long ago) or $1500 in the L'Oreal makup salon"

I am sure UgHHaa said to BLuggHHa "did you use real blood or is that some phony vegetable extract..."

What counts is; does it look good, or intiguing, or strange...

...or like this, just [explicative deleted]

Victor

 

[bensonga]

What I was wondering about was- what difference does it make to the picture or the impact it may have on a viewer (other than the likes of us in a web fora setting)?

From an art appreciation perspective....it shouldn't make any difference, so I understand/agree with your point there. However, the fact is (which Stephen alluded to), many people pooh-pooh such an image if they think it was "photoshopped" and hence "not real".

Whether thru the efforts of a makeup artist or a computer artist, such an image would warrant equal praise in my book. Oh yeah....the photographer (who might not be the same person as a computer artist) should get a little credit too.

Gary

 

[Jeremy]

From an art appreciation perspective....it shouldn't make any difference, so I understand/agree with your point there.

If by "art appreciation" you mean general understanding of art in popular culture I would agree.

If by "art appreciation" you mean the appreciation of art in an art historical sense (i.e. art appreciation 101) then I would disagree as the intent of the artist and the process of creation DO make a difference.

 

[Jeremy]

http://www.todayandtomorrow.net/2010/03/16/acrylic-on-flesh/

(edit) Link directly to the artist's portfolio mentioned in the link I posted here: http://www.alexameade.com/portfolio.html