Forum Saradas
yourmuscleshop.com saradas.org
gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
granabolic
 
gfx gfx
parapharma steroidify
gfxgfx
 
Welcome to Forum Saradas! Female Bodybuilding, Fitness, Figure & Bikini

Do you love female bodybuilding and events like the Olympia and the Arnold Classic? Are you interested in female bodybuilding, fitness, figure & bikini?
If so check out and join our female bodybuilding forum! Saradas is the oldest and most popular female bodybuilding, fitness forum.

🔥 At Saradas you will find the most amazing and rare pictures of probably every female professional bodybuilder who has ever competed.   
🔥 You can keep up with female bodybuilding news from all over the world and hear the latest on your favorite bodybuilder.
🔥 You will find the latest updates on bodybuilding events like the Olympia and the Arnold Classic.

Saradas is your one stop female bodybuilding resource. Come and join us!
 
gfx gfx
gfx
524975 Posts in 65186 Topics by 24734 Members - Latest Member: Drnzvrc August 18, 2022, 04:33:54 am
*
gfx* Home | Help | Login | Register | gfx
gfx
Forum Saradas  |  Female BodyBuilding & Fitness & Figure - Members Area  |  General Chat  |  Horrible editing of photos!
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: Horrible editing of photos!  (Read 3445 times)

Offline Sar-Net

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 472
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 3205
Horrible editing of photos!
« on: January 27, 2019, 04:50:59 am »
I have noticed an appalling trend, the higher the resolution of the photo the more horrid the editing of the woman's faces. 

I'm wondering if others have noticed it?

I think its not just the pro photographers whom should know better, but the women seem to be doing it in Selfies too.

I've seen women who have good skin tone in HIRES videos that have their faces smeared away in photos to the point there is no longer a face just a smear.  This kind of smearing away a face has to take longer than doing it right, so it can't be just high speed editing.

I just don't get it either, as even if they are removing a blemish or pimple or something, even a low end image editor can work at the pixel level and remove the blemish without removing the shading, skin tone , etc.

And if they have major skin problems, its better to fix it with theatrical makeup before the photo shoot rather than after.  Truth is professional photographers should have professional makeup artists at photo shoots.

Then there is another issue, I wonder if some of the photographers do it on purpose?

Anyway I'm interested in what others notice and think of the issue. 




Offline hhheeeyyy123456

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1260
  • Activity:
    33.33%
  • KARMA: 2083
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2019, 05:58:08 am »
I agree with you.  To add to this- I think a lot of these photos need not have extra obvious shadowing and 'gritty' filters.  The point is to show extreme detail, and if it's just badly placed photoshop effects, it undermines the beauty of the physiques.  That's why I like a lot of photography from the early 90s and late 80s.  A lot of detail, warm light.  These kinds of pictures look much better.  Why not go back to that?


Offline M7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 2876
  • Gender: Male
  • never too big for me
    • imagevenue
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2019, 11:21:07 am »
Oh yeah, I've noticed it! Not just the face, but the body too. You're right, it's not hard to remove a blemish without ruining the image. I can't stand all these filters, etc. that ruin pictures. The trend has gotten ridiculous. I'd rather see them with all the imperfections anyway. Be proud of who you are ladies! Nobody's perfect. You're beautiful just the way you are.

Offline Sar-Net

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 472
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 3205
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2019, 10:02:50 am »
I agree with you.  To add to this- I think a lot of these photos need not have extra obvious shadowing and 'gritty' filters.  The point is to show extreme detail, and if it's just badly placed photoshop effects, it undermines the beauty of the physiques.  That's why I like a lot of photography from the early 90s and late 80s.  A lot of detail, warm light.  These kinds of pictures look much better.  Why not go back to that?




I like the images from back then too.  I think a lot of photographers don't get the importance of proper lighting these days.  Sure a digicam has a wider range it works in but you still need to get lighting to get the image right. 
And as always "Artsy Fartsy" gets in the way of the real subject of the image AKA the woman.

Offline Sar-Net

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 472
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 3205
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2019, 10:06:13 am »
Oh yeah, I've noticed it! Not just the face, but the body too. You're right, it's not hard to remove a blemish without ruining the image. I can't stand all these filters, etc. that ruin pictures. The trend has gotten ridiculous. I'd rather see them with all the imperfections anyway. Be proud of who you are ladies! Nobody's perfect. You're beautiful just the way you are.

Yea I see the horrid body work too but making a beautiful face a smear is a crime against humanity.

Offline jdm022

  • Gold Member VIP
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3889
  • Activity:
    60%
  • KARMA: 13334
    • HerFlex Muscle Stories and art
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2019, 01:38:57 pm »
I agree as well, but the main problem is the poor quality of the cell phone cameras vs the 35mm of yesteryear! In addition, the pre programmed filters in the cell phones can further ruin the picture quality.

The latest cell phones do have much better cameras non them but 35mm film is still better, so because f expense, we may not get back to the awesome quality of the 90s pics  :sorry:
Please support me at: www.patreon.com/herflex

Offline Sar-Net

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 472
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 3205
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2019, 08:57:53 am »
I agree as well, but the main problem is the poor quality of the cell phone cameras vs the 35mm of yesteryear! In addition, the pre programmed filters in the cell phones can further ruin the picture quality.

The latest cell phones do have much better cameras non them but 35mm film is still better, so because f expense, we may not get back to the awesome quality of the 90s pics  :sorry:

I did a little checking on digicams, anyway looks like camera phones won't be catching up to film for a while, current camera phones are 12mega pixel, but because of the type of imaging chip used it will take at least a 175mega pixel camera to equal good 35mm film.

Here is an excerpt from a page from Ken Rockwell professional photographer, who seems to know his stuff at least as far as I can tell.

"The Digital Resolution of Film

So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?

Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."

At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.

 
Summary

As we've seen, film can store far more detail than any digital capture system.

The gotchas with any of these systems is that:

1.) It takes one heck of a lens to be able to resolve this well.

2.) It takes even more of a photographer to be able to get that much detail on the film, and

3.) If you want to scan the film and retain this detail, you need one hack of a scanner (320 lpmm = 8,000 DPI).

This is why every time higher-resolution film scanners came out back before amateurs could afford DSLRs, we saw more details where we though we wouldn't see any.

Consumer 35mm scanners hit 5,400 DPI (Minolta) before the amateurs went to DSLRs, and even at 5,400 DPI we still saw more detail in our scans than we did at 4,800 DPI.

Film never stopped amazing us as we scanned it higher, and this is why.

5,400 DPI is equal to 212 pixels per mm, or 0.045MP/mm^2. Thus a 35mm slide, scanned on that Minolta 5400 scanner, yielded 39MP images, without Bayer Interpolation. Open these in PhotoShop, and 39x3 = 120 MB files, again, sharper than the Bayer-interpolated images from digital cameras.

Resolution has nothing to do with getting the right pixels and making a good photo, but if all you want to do is count pixels, count on film." 

Offline knufflschmoe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Activity:
    0%
  • KARMA: 57
  • Gender: Male
  • Female Bodybuilding, Physique, Fitness, Figure & Bikini
Re: Horrible editing of photos!
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2021, 08:44:29 am »
worst photos are still to find in wB270 session platform.....

donĀ“t know why there is no  renewal of postings. session girls either ignore it:not good for marketing..!
                                                                       or admin there is not interested in optimal service ..??!

Forum Saradas  |  Female BodyBuilding & Fitness & Figure - Members Area  |  General Chat  |  Horrible editing of photos!
 

gfxgfx
Forum Saradas does not host any files on its own servers.
gfx
It only points to various links on the Internet that already exist.
It is recommended to buy Original Video, CD, DVD's and pictures only.
gfx
Mobile View