anderzander

Viewers have questioned the accuracy and detail (and as I mentioned) it is the future. The figure in white is biting her tounge, there are four sets of colored eyes as selected, the nude figure has slightly larger lips to compliment Pacific Islanders or African females. The blond is a typical pixy hair young model.
The naked figure also has crows feet around the eyes, this type of detail can be increased to what ever ones desire is, it also can create awkward looking figures. Thats how sofisticated the software is. Skin tones and lighting can be adjusted, it is real flesh. The naked lady also has makeup which can easily be controlled. I have stayed with the basic tools because I'm still learning the process of creating what I like as original art forms. THEY ARE FOUR DISTINCT MODELS WITH SIMILAR FEATURES.

Eccuse my spelling.

(Download)

RogStrix Loc: UK

I'm rubbish at PhotoShop so perhaps I can go against the flow and appreciate how much work you put into these. Don't be put off by the critics and keep working on your skills!

InfiniteISO Loc: The Carolinas, USA

As much as this work is impressive, I have to ask have you ever worked with a real model?

There is a collaborative aspect to portraiture work, regardless of whether it is a figure session, that adds something to your life experience (and theirs). I look at the images of people I've shot and I always remember some little thing we talked about or some facet of their life story.

In photographing real people there are the instantaneous and yet fleeting expressions that you may or may not capture and may or may not want to capture. Dealing with real people in real time is part of the talent associated with portrait photography.

If you extrapolate this technology to its maturity there will be no need for models at all. Take it a bit further and the person tweaking the computer won't be necessary either. At some point, this technology will allow any user to put any group of known individuals in any setting and dictate their actions and dialog.

At some point there won't be any new celebrities because there will be no way for anyone to make a living acting! But... if you want to see Marilyn Monroe dance the tango with Harrison Ford upside down on an airplane wing flying over the grand canyon you'll be able ask a computer to generate it.

There will also be a lot of very dark, heinous things you'll be able to ask a computer to generate. I'm sorry, but I feel any technology that alienates people from interpersonal relationships and the consequences of their thoughts is ultimately a bad thing. This is a future I don't want.

anderzander

I have worked with several models over the years, I'm not a people person in requiring poses, however, I lost interest in that part of photography, I have posted some of that work before, I am a family man and stay close only to my family and friends. I could easily post portrait work, children and nude models from years ago, much like what others have posted here, that is no longer what I'm interested in, this work just happened to be a new avenue to explore and nothing more. That is why this is my last post, I have other projects I work on, and any photo work is documentary only, as in the post I did about 9/11and the World Trade Center complex, the sculpture work was before the colapse and one work (Fritz Koenig" that somewhat survived and is now on display at the Liberty Park above ground walkway in lower Manhattan. I have travel all over and that is what I document, it is an obsession. Thank you for your interest. I also agree, the future will be damn scarry, and I don't want my grandkids influenced by what will come. I have seen really good animations, one was that Snow White lost her verginity to the seven dwarfs, as in gang rape, also Cinderella didn't loose her glass slipper she lost her virginity, I am fully aware of the dark side and it doesn't look good.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Sorry, but these kinds of photos do nothing for me.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Probably because they are not photos.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Definitely illustrative looking.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

In certain venues this might be interesting. However, when one is looking at photographs, on a photo web site, this causes a complete disconnect with the subject and any technique that might be displayed.
--Bob

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

What is the goal for making this graphic besides not having to utilize models?

anderzander

The information and images were posted for educational purposes, I won't be back and I will discontinue accessing Ugly, it's an oxymoron site that if you can't post anything beyond photography then this site is nothing more that an egoy trip, and I don't think I have seen professional photographers post here, I could be wrong, but that's not the point, if you can't be educated, that isn't my problem.
I constantly improve my craft, that's what I do.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Well, it would be a shame to see you go and this is coming from a working professional. My comment above was not meant as a criticism of the work but as an "objective feeling" I had from it (I think I just coined an oxymoron).

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Those of us who are not slaves to the traditionalists and ‘out of camera’ brigade, who try to push our photography to new levels of story telling, not merely persevering a visual history with little emotion, understand what you are doing and why you have posted these images without asking why. Those who castigate are likely technicians, who think a proper exposure is more important than emotional impact of an image, are stuck in the past and have no vision or interest in the future.

I apologize for the abuse you have received from the incurious “Uglies”, and thank you for giving us a glimpse of what the future might offer, whether we like it or not, looking and trying to understand is always better than a judgemental dismissal and then sticking your head in the sand.

jonsommer Loc: Usually, somewhere on the U.S. west coast.

Those of us who are not slaves to the traditionalists and ‘out of camera’ brigade, who try to push our photography to new levels of story telling, not merely persevering a visual history with little emotion, understand what you are doing and why you have posted these images without asking why. Those who castigate are likely technicians, who think a proper exposure is more important than emotional impact of an image, are stuck in the past and have no vision or interest in the future.

I apologize for the abuse you have received from the incurious “Uglies”, and thank you for giving us a glimpse of what the future might offer, whether we like it or not, looking and trying to understand is always better than a judgemental dismissal and then sticking your head in the sand.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I fear you're mistaken. Photography deals with, from the etymology of the word, writing with light. CGI is not related to photography other than it produces an image. It does not do so through the use of light. That posted production has little to do with capturing and using light.
--Bob