Russian Girls

[capt3211]

Are Russian the ladies at dosug.nu real,or touched up photos?

[jjhill]

Ya tyebya lyublyu, I learned that from my wifey that's is of Russian descent

But back on the subject, they all look photo shopped to me

[Willie Escalade]

Most of them are. :? Sorry, bruh!

[MacShreach]

Are Russian the ladies at dosug.nu real,or touched up photos?

Yes, but no more than any competent glamour photographer would do. It's mostly very good make-up and lighting.

The problem is that most of the pictures of this genre you see are not done by competent photographers, so when people see proper pro stuff they think it's fake. But it's no more fake than any other glamour work, which is not "real" in the sense of reportage anyway. It's all about making the girl look as gorgeous as possible, and believe me, some Russian photographers are extremely good at that. Their work is typically classic and highly stylised.

If you want a taste, go to

http://www2.met-art.com/

A lot of good Russian work on that site, some samples attached, which show a similar style to the dosug pictures


:shrug

[FREEFALLL666]

If they were proper professionals they wouldn't screw with the image with Photoshopping.. Seriously "The camera never lies" now means shit.

[KirstenH]

99% of all pics you see are fake (photoshopped)
especialy when it comes to model and porn photography. :wink:

[alyssats]

^^^ really goshhh

yes whenever I look at those Fashion magazines, Maxim,FHM so good photography and photoshop

honestly i want to have that kind of photoshop pic also glamour sexy look but i dont know any good one who can do that

[jjhill]

Are Russian the ladies at dosug.nu real,or touched up photos?

Yes, but no more than any competent glamour photographer would do. It's mostly very good make-up and lighting.

The problem is that most of the pictures of this genre you see are not done by competent photographers, so when people see proper pro stuff they think it's fake. But it's no more fake than any other glamour work, which is not "real" in the sense of reportage anyway. It's all about making the girl look as gorgeous as possible, and believe me, some Russian photographers are extremely good at that. Their work is typically classic and highly stylised.

If you want a taste, go to

http://www2.met-art.com/

A lot of good Russian work on that site, some samples attached, which show a similar style to the dosug pictures


:shrug

now that's creepy the blond looks exactly like my girlfriend :shock: I'm not one of those black guys that think everybody look alike either lol

[MacShreach]

If they were proper professionals they wouldn't screw with the image with Photoshopping.. Seriously "The camera never lies" now means shit.

Well, the first bit just isn't true. Photographers have always retouched and tarted up images, and we still do, it's just digital now. In fact, not so very long ago there was a thriving business of airbrush artists who did it with real airbrushes, and some were really amazing in their abilities. Countless books were written on this arcane art, and every major city with a publishing industry had companies that would do anything you liked, all by hand. And a quite surprising amount of print manipulation can be done in the darkroom, as I would be delighted to demonstrate if you ever make it across the pond. However you might like to look at Jerry Uelsmann's work for a real eye-opener. (I have attached three of his images, all made long before digital photography or manipulation.) All this has been replaced by tools like Photoshop. (Unless you're mad like me and still like film.)

Having said that there is no pro photographer alive who would not rather start with a properly exposed, well-composed image that needed the minimum afterwork possible. Why? Because it is MUCH quicker and thus much cheaper to do it right first time and just have to tweak the image a touch, if at all, and of course you are right, if you're bang on, none will be needed. And, yes, pros will need far less recourse to afterwork, because we are used to getting it right, especially those of us who were trained in the era of transparency film, which is notoriously demanding (but then we did used to use a hell of a lot of Polaroids....)

I suggest you go along to one of those "makeover and portrait" places, and see how they make the most ordinary (I'm being polite) looking girls look like real stunners. This is what those Russian boys are doing. It's no great trick, just solid pro photography.

[SXFX]

I aint saying shit!
But it would be great if those girls did at least one movie!

[FREEFALLL666]

If they were proper professionals they wouldn't screw with the image with Photoshopping.. Seriously "The camera never lies" now means shit.

Well, the first bit just isn't true. Photographers have always retouched and tarted up images, and we still do, it's just digital now. In fact, not so very long ago there was a thriving business of airbrush artists who did it with real airbrushes, and some were really amazing in their abilities. Countless books were written on this arcane art, and every major city with a publishing industry had companies that would do anything you liked, all by hand. And a quite surprising amount of print manipulation can be done in the darkroom, as I would be delighted to demonstrate if you ever make it across the pond. However you might like to look at Jerry Uelsmann's work for a real eye-opener. (I have attached three of his images, all made long before digital photography or manipulation.) All this has been replaced by tools like Photoshop. (Unless you're mad like me and still like film.)

Having said that there is no pro photographer alive who would not rather start with a properly exposed, well-composed image that needed the minimum afterwork possible. Why? Because it is MUCH quicker and thus much cheaper to do it right first time and just have to tweak the image a touch, if at all, and of course you are right, if you're bang on, none will be needed. And, yes, pros will need far less recourse to afterwork, because we are used to getting it right, especially those of us who were trained in the era of transparency film, which is notoriously demanding (but then we did used to use a hell of a lot of Polaroids....)

I suggest you go along to one of those "makeover and portrait" places, and see how they make the most ordinary (I'm being polite) looking girls look like real stunners. This is what those Russian boys are doing. It's no great trick, just solid pro photography.
I have no issue with photo manipulation for art. When it comes to people though? No we dont need an army of plastic looking people, even the most subtle touches are a distortion. I would even say that even with permission to photoshop someones image is a great insult.
When we see someone who we find attractive we actually start to see the minor imperfections as enhancements..

[MacShreach]

I have no issue with photo manipulation for art. When it comes to people though? No we dont need an army of plastic looking people, even the most subtle touches are a distortion. I would even say that even with permission to photoshop someones image is a great insult.
When we see someone who we find attractive we actually start to see the minor imperfections as enhancements..

Heh, you are at risk of rehearsing probably the greatest debate in the history of photography, a three-legged beast featuring the Pictorialists, the Formalists and what might loosely be called the Realists.

In terms of day to day professional photography, however, whether we are talking about glamour, portraiture, advertising photography, a large amount of editorial photography outside hard news and sport and even humble wedding snaps, artificial retouching has been the name of the game for a over a hundred years.

Digital manipulation makes it cheaper, and that makes it more common, and it has also had the usual dumbing down effect; just as people now think that because they can take a picture with a digital camera, somehow that makes them photographers, people think that because they have a PC and Photoshop, they are graphic artists,

Like the man said, it ain't necessarily so. :wink: