Beautiful people gone ugly

windozewindoze Registered Users Posts: 2,830 Major grins
edited October 1, 2005 in Cameras
hmmm, yesterday while stuck in traffic, was thinking about the 5D but then was interrupted by a radio conservation about HDTV. The conclusion was that this new definition in "sharpness" is showing beautiful people to look "ugly". every line, wrinkle, every mark shows up discustingly clear.for example they said terri hatcher ( whoever that is ) looks like she has a A^AA highway map on her forhead and demi moore looks like her lips / mouth have significantly dropped due to smoking and donald trump's cheeks look more puffier than one of his so hotles. im thinking how does this if at all apply to a new breed of higher resolution cameras?

just curious, any other opinions??

troy

Comments

  • KevinKalKevinKal Registered Users Posts: 246 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    As with everything Hollywood: Digital Editing :): !

    Kevin K.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    no doubt, full-frame will reveal every single flaw in your subject's skin / features :D learning to use the spot-healing brush is critically important for portrait work. but the upside, is that the details that the cameras produce are nothing short of amazing. at screen-size, here on dgrin, who cares? but printed, and printed large, people become, well, full-framier :D it's hard to comprehend until you actually compare a big-res print against a lower res shot. but the differences are huge.

    this doesn't mean that the 1.6x and 1.5x cameras can't go big, i still print big files from shots from my 10d, 20d bodies - but once you see the details of the full-frame, you can get spoiled really fast lol3.gif

    good topic, troy thumb.gif

    btw, teri hatcher? hot!!!!!!!!!
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    I *love* HD
    I got HD set last January and I don't regret a single moment about that decision.

    My point is: is you have a hires image, you can ALWAYS downsample it. Vice versa does not always workne_nau.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    Nikolai wrote:
    I got HD set last January and I don't regret a single moment about that decision.


    Just think about all the glass you coulda bought with that money....then you'll start to regret it!
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    I don't have FF body
    andy wrote:
    btw, teri hatcher? hot!!!!!!!!!
    But I second that opinion. thumb.gif
    And IMHO Eva Longoria is even hotter :yum.
    I can't wait until she and "Jack Bauer" (from "24") will start in a new TV show...:):
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited September 30, 2005
    Nah:-)
    DavidTO wrote:
    Just think about all the glass you coulda bought with that money....then you'll start to regret it!
    It would not get me a single L glass...
    I got a promotion from Dish Network, the whole thing (2-tuner HD receiver/PVR and 34" direct view HD monitor) was under $1K..
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited October 1, 2005
    Even with 6 megapixels, if I get a razor-sharp portrait I gotta do a little "soft focus" filtering otherwise every litle pore shows.

    I think overall, it's just another element that a professional photographer has to deal with in order to keep his customers business; many pros I think are softening up the blemishes in people's faces, just because they don't want to offend.

    Of course though, more resolution is always a good thing because firstly, you can always down-sample, and second, you gain that much more cropping power with each megapixel you add. Personally I'd love to be able to shoot a few mm wider and not have to worry about getting the portrait exactly level, for one thing...

    -Matt-
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • BaldyBaldy Registered Users, Super Moderators Posts: 2,853 moderator
    edited October 1, 2005
    Many photographers tell us that for critical portraits they keep the eyes and lips sharp (hair too, depending on the hair) but the skin soft. I think it's more about sharpness/softness than resolution because pores and other details are well within the resolution of 6 megapixel cameras.
    My Smug Mug
  • colourboxcolourbox Registered Users Posts: 2,095 Major grins
    edited October 1, 2005
    What has happened with HDTV is this. When you see a published photo of a movie star, there's been time to retouch the heck out of that one frame. I just saw a photo of Naomi Watts in Wired Magazine; she's 37 but looks right outta college in that photo.

    But with TV, you can't manually retouch every frame, but stars have been "saved" by the fact that TV resolution has been around 640x480 (an about half that on a VHS tape). If you're looking at a TV actor and they're not in a close-up, their face is probably 100 pixels tall most of the time. That covers up a lot of problems!

    It's not only about faces. I saw another story about how HDTV is causing major headaches for TV set designers and budgets. If you've ever seen a TV stage set in person, you know that they are the cheapest, sloppiest looking things imaginable. Now, with HDTV lenses and cameras, they're finding that the high resolution reveals so many flaws in set construction and finish that veteran TV set designers used to be able to get away with because standard-def TV resolution would smooth it all out. Now they have to spend more money and time getting the set to look better for HDTV.
Sign In or Register to comment.