I don't believe this photo was created as the photographer claims (Page 5): :sm24: :sm24: :sm24:...

tdekany Loc: Oregon

stan0301 wrote:

In that Michangelo chiseled away every bit of marble he felt that didn't contribute to his statue--what difference does it make? The image could have been done as stated--but it would be hard--also would maybe be harder to do it the other way--certainly not easy
Stan

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

What I'm not seeing, which I would expect to, is the back of her right calf reflected in the mirror.

bearcat wrote:

You may have seen this photo in recent emails proc... (show quote)

rocketride Loc: Upstate NY

Indeed. Take one (or more) photo without her and as many as needed with her and photoshop as needed. It's artistic, not phtojournalistic, so no problem.
Part of the point of the effect is that the grass seen through the mirror frame has to match up with the grass behind her. Good luck with getting that unmanipulated.

SharpShooter wrote:

It doesn't matter one way or the other. It's a pictorial and not journalism, so anything goes! Including any amount of PP. no explanations necessary.
It's not about how it's created, what's important is the creativity and the concept. ;-)
SS

Heather Iles Loc: UK, Somerset

ARTIST4EVER wrote:

Sorry about error in typing my comment.... 1st line error....(many varations on my iMAC)... 2nd line error...(I can tell you how it can be done, but I won't....

May I ask why not? Not that I want to know, but I am sure that other members would like to know. I thought this site was for learning and sharing. If we didn't share there would be no written books.

Canonman333 Loc: Far Northern End of California

There is obviously a lot of postprocessing artifacts that you can see when enlarging the photo. In fact, there are so many that there's no doubt about the post processing. I'm not sure however, what the issue is as most photos in today's world go through post processing two varying degrees.

bcrawf

Heather Iles wrote:

May I ask why not? Not that I want to know, but I am sure that other members would like to know. I thought this site was for learning and sharing. If we didn't share there would be no written books.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Canonman333 wrote:

There is obviously a lot of postprocessing artifacts that you can see when enlarging the photo. In fact, there are so many that there's no doubt about the post processing. I'm not sure however, what the issue is as most photos in today's world go through post processing two varying degrees.

bcrawf

ARTIST4EVER wrote:

Sorry about error in typing my comment.... 1st line error....(many varations on my iMAC)... 2nd line error...(I can tell you how it can be done, but I won't....

Oh, really now. There are various ways involving masking and layering (in Photoshop or another app) to accomplish the effect. What makes it good as an image (or as art) is how the result looks, not how easy or complicated its process is.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Who said it was a mirror? Obviously it is a magic panel. I like the picture, she published the picture she envisioned.

Loose Canon Loc: Mesa, AZ

I look at it like this, I can by a volksbuggy at 30 HP or I can buy a Viper at about 700, and yes one will outperform the other, unless of course I put a rocket engine in the buggy. Now tell me, is it a volkswagen or not ? The bottom line is this, it's either stock or it's not. The day when a buggy smokes a viper is the day he photoshopped it. And I don't give a tinkers finger about Adams, for all I know, he was a painter who never left the house. You heard it here first: You can put lipstick on a pig...if you have Photoshop.

sjb3

I had a look at her photostream on Yahoo; that young lady knows Photoshop inside and out. The shot posted here, along with her other works are extremely well- and professionally done. I've been "photoshopping" for more than 10 years and wish I was even half that good. She planned that shot all right, including exactly what she would do to it in post to get the resulting image she obviously had in mind all along.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

sjb3 wrote:

I had a look at her photostream on Yahoo; that young lady knows Photoshop inside and out. The shot posted here, along with her other works are extremely well- and professionally done. I've been "photoshopping" for more than 10 years and wish I was even half that good. She planned that shot all right, including exactly what she would do to it in post to get the resulting image she obviously had in mind all along.

DJO

Twardlow wrote:

Her thing was the idea. It's a good idea, and it works. I think the photoshop was fairly easy, but she thought of it...we didn't.

Hey Twardlow-

Did I say she had stolen "her idea", what ever that means to you, for the photograph being discussed? No, I did not. Was I critical of her concept in any way? No, I was not. Did I give her a compliment? Yes, more than one.

I said I believed her to be a very talented photographer. Had I not been pressed for time (a death in my family; funeral was today) I would have gone on to say I found her recent body of work quite impressive artistically and technically.

Then there was the other compliment. She has show herself adept; more than adept, in fact extremely adroit at using both the right and left sides of her brain. Few people in the world have this ability. Or gift. Call it whatever you wish, but it truly is rare. When it crosses your path, cherish that moment, however fleeting it may be, because it may not happen again for a very long time. If ever.

I'm seeing remarks about parades being rained on, and stones being thrown at glass houses, etc., etc., but don't be looking toward me.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

SharpShooter wrote:

It doesn't matter one way or the other. It's a pictorial and not journalism, so anything goes! Including any amount of PP. no explanations necessary.
It's not about how it's created, what's important is the creativity and the concept. ;-)
SS

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Racmanaz wrote:

Nothing better than a transparent woman! :)

How 'bout a silent one ?