High-Res photography is frickin' disgusting.

[jhansman]

You might want to download and try Portrait Professional: http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

The results, while "idealized," are pretty cool. I've taken portraits of two women friends who like the way pores, blemishes and wrinkles were removed.

 

[SonicIce]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1591

 

[rh71]

well the rest of this centerfold exists at the same resolution

thumbs up for a classic hottie. I think she was the hottest baywatch babe.

 

[FeuerFrei]

I tend to agree. Now I can see all the bronze makeup celebrities have caked on. No one admires a facade ... oh wait, maybe they do.

 

[ElFenix]

Camera model please.

MP is purely marketing these days.
It's no different than going back to the 70s with the "wattage wars" in home stereo gear.

no no no no.

every time a new generation of SLR comes out with increased MP, there is a gaggle of people claiming it's too much and that the previous resolution level was perfect and all the manufacturers have done is increase noise. they do this every single time and they've been wrong each time.

 

[hans030390]

You might want to download and try Portrait Professional: http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

The results, while "idealized," are pretty cool. I've taken portraits of two women friends who like the way pores, blemishes and wrinkles were removed.

Some of those examples are creepy.

 

[Rubycon]

no no no no.

every time a new generation of SLR comes out with increased MP, there is a gaggle of people claiming it's too much and that the previous resolution level was perfect and all the manufacturers have done is increase noise. they do this every single time and they've been wrong each time.

I'm not discussing SLR cameras in general, just megapixels. For example people will brag about an eight megapixel camera phone is better than a six megapixel Canon Rebel of 2003 vintage. (I have both and can tell you the latter is obviously superior!)

Point and shoots have eclipsed 16MP! Their sensors are tiny and they use so much post processing that it would be better staying with a more reasonable figure - half that at most. A lot of folks go by that figure alone.

My comparison with wattage is a valid one as I remember people using that specification (along with frequency response of loudspeakers hehe) alone - to base their purchases without giving merit to equally (if not more important) specifications.

 

[shortylickens]

Have you seen any recent playboy pics? the airbrush the shit out of them. Do not want.

Ummm, have you seen the FIRST issue of Playboy?

 

[vbuggy]

you just reiterated my point...

How did I do that?

 

[Barfo]

Ummm, have you seen the FIRST issue of Playboy?

No, is it worse?

 

[shortylickens]

Playboy has been airbrushed since the very beginning. They never stopped doing it, though they have modified their technique over the years.

 

[MarkXIX]

Have you seen any recent playboy pics? the airbrush the shit out of them. Do not want.

This. I think they have a "Vaseline on the lens" filter in Photoshop now that they use on every photo.

 

[ZaneNBK]

You might want to download and try Portrait Professional: http://www.portraitprofessional.com/

The results, while "idealized," are pretty cool. I've taken portraits of two women friends who like the way pores, blemishes and wrinkles were removed.

Wow, the top left example of the women's gallery is horrible. The beginning result is very good and the freckles are nice, the idealized result has almost her entire face very obviously blurred out. It's terrible.

 

[disappoint]

Wow, the top left example of the women's gallery is horrible. The beginning result is very good and the freckles are nice, the idealized result has almost her entire face very obviously blurred out. It's terrible.

Look at the bottom right example under men. lol digital lipo suction.

 

[Locut0s]

I know you're joking but you're not supposed to view the pics on your screen at 100% you dummy. Assuming you have a good camera and lens, and it's ALL about a good lens and camera, then after that it's all about DPI. You take the high res shots so that at say 300DPI, magazine quality, you can still print out an 8 by 10 or larger.

 

[Locut0s]

I take everything at max resolution. Not because I need to but because you never know beforehand if a shot is going to turn out really nice or not. And you can always throw away pixels/data you can never create them when you don't have them.

 

[shortylickens]

I take everything at max resolution. Not because I need to but because you never know beforehand if a shot is going to turn out really nice or not. And you can always throw away pixels/data you can never create them when you don't have them.

Yeah, being able to crop and resize and stuff later on is always important. In fact I wish more people would take that seriously cuz I'm getting REALLY damn tired of seeing shitty 4000x3000 pics in my email.

 

[Barfo]

Yeah, being able to crop and resize and stuff later on is always important. In fact I wish more people would take that seriously cuz I'm getting REALLY damn tired of seeing shitty 4000x3000 pics in my email.

What's you email? I'll send you some 12MP pics of my nose hair.

As for the Playboy pics, I only saw magazines from 1993 to 2001. I've seen some more recent ones and they look much worse in the airbrushing department, like the models are made of wax or something. Kills my boner.