It’s untrue to say “No Photoshop”. The linked article says “No Photoshop funny business”, but it’s clear that Photoshop was used to convert to black & white and to push the contrast and definition.
My thoughts precisely. “[O]nly the small tweaks: light, contrast & colour” is tweaks nonetheless. I might give it a pass if was done using analog technology.
Great results take time. And time is money.We took 2000 shots in a single day in order to produce fewer than 20 final photographs.
So, not cheap then. Too bad – I guess we won’t be seeing many others working to duplicate the technique and bringing the price down.
True (and fully admitted on the original site), but when people hear “Photoshop” in connection with photographed bodies, they usually think of stretches here and there, wrinkles removed, tummies tucked and sixpacked, and so on. Not just tweaks of contrast, light and color.
The video is intriguing too:
I’m seeing some abs that look anything but ordinary to me… Ok, they’re not professional athletes, but at least some of these people are clearly some sort of athletes.
It is titled ‘Ordinary People, Hollywood Budget’. So it is indeed not cheap to look good.
Even though I am among the countless people who look like reheated shit in 90% of photos, I know it is not because I am especially hideous. Most celebrities/models have a very expensive lifestyle, maintenance and effort behind their image. Some are exceptionally proportioned humans but many of them look pretty normal (albeit not outright malformed) without all the work and gloss. The few times I met celebrities in the flesh, I thought it was notable how regular and non-ethereal they looked, aside from the fact that many seemed smaller and very skinny, almost gaunt, IRL. They were also often caked in cosmetics, which looks great on film but a lot more obvious and contrived in real-life.
The main reason ‘regular’ people pictures look bad in photos is because the photographers are regular people as well who just don’t know what it takes for a photo to be good.
Not necessarily. Sure, the rain machine and expensive lights are a part of it in this case, but as you said the main difference between these shots and crappy regular-people ones is the skill of the photographer/retoucher.
I’m sure Von Wong is a seasoned enough pro to be able to create something not too worse than that with a couple of house lamps, a garden hose and a cell phone camera.
Most of these people are actually in reasonably good shape. The photos are nice anyway.
I guess ‘cheap’ is relative. The time and experience it takes to become a good photographer amounts to something. Also, taking dozens- or hundreds- of photos and sort through to find and fix up only the very best ones takes time and work, which is also worth something.
I have to take photos of my product for my business, and even though I do use a couple of lampsand a basic digital camera, it takes me many hours to take various angles, pick the best ones, tweak the light, work on the cropping, etc… It is work, so it is worth money in some way. I think even a highly professional photographer would still have to go through most of those steps to get a great image, because that’s how you get a good image (aside from some flukes). It’s rarely truly ‘cheap’ and effortless.
Indeed. Professional results and “cheap” rarely go along together, and it’s a good thing too. I only wish professional work was always valued fairly in this age of “you mean I have to pay for your work / it will be great exposure” shenanigans.
They are nice photos but it’s a one trick pony sort of thing. And clearly there is Photoshop using dodge and burn especially on the abs of the guy who is tossing something from his shoulder. I’m a graphic designer and I can see when tweaks are made. These are clearly heavily Photoshopped “but with classic photography techniques.” Which still makes it Photoshop.
If it was a digital camera there is image processing. Lightroom and photoshop are just developing tools- with film they burned and dodged. If you set the camera to give you JPEGS it will run its own processing on them.
I am not certain what all the hate is about.
I’m really out of shape right now, so no one take this as criticism, but assuming you aren’t facing any significant physical disabilities wouldn’t it probably be cheaper and easier just to work out?
The article vaguely implies that this was a sort of art piece, maybe to make a statement about how physical ideals are closer than we realize once you subtract the “Hollywood magic.” But the bit at the end–“This year, give yourself the gift of self-confidence”–implies that this was a paid glamour-shot kind of thing. So I’m confused.
I’m guessing every article and repost adds their own slant to the message.
But from what I know of the photographer’s YouTube channel I can tell these projects have a lot to do with trying creative challenges as a way of improving, as well as sharing knowledge and inspiration as a means of self-promotion. So there’s that for intent.
This is exactly what I came in to say - these people might not be professionals, but they’re still in pretty good shape for “everyday people”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.