|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:36 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle I.Am Pyrotechnic Oracle Then you don't understand the extent of makeup magic. I've seen some amazing stuff. ...As I said, it has nothing to do with makeup, and everything to do with the fact that human children that size would not sit still in outfits and positions like that. Legally. You could drug them, perhaps. But that's about your only option. And four of them at once? Forget it. Then think out side the box. There are plently of extremly life like baby dolls. That's a possibility... But that would be some unbelievable articulation. And I'm quite fine at thinking outside the box thanks. I just so happen to hold that it is a good possibility that Photoshop was involved in the creating of the photo. Is that so wrong?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:10 pm
Considering your doughtign the creativity behind this, after seeing for yoru self just what movie mackup can do (Blade, The Thing, Night/Dawn/Day/Land of the Dead. Not ot mention the newer movies coming out such as Eye in the Hills or what ever that movie is called with the family that's survived the nuke testing) I'd say it is kind of wrong. And it would'nt be that hard. I've seen colloge plays with some rather convincing make up. And considering I've seen enough real fursits in mytime to beable to tell a fake form a real, I'd say this one is real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:53 am
Pyrotechnic Oracle Considering your doughtign the creativity behind this, after seeing for yoru self just what movie mackup can do (Blade, The Thing, Night/Dawn/Day/Land of the Dead. Not ot mention the newer movies coming out such as Eye in the Hills or what ever that movie is called with the family that's survived the nuke testing) I'd say it is kind of wrong. And it would'nt be that hard. I've seen colloge plays with some rather convincing make up. And considering I've seen enough real fursits in mytime to beable to tell a fake form a real, I'd say this one is real. What's your problem? I never said it wasn't creative. In fact, I find it insulting that you imply that Photoshop is -not- creative, as I quite enjoy Photoshopped images and greatly respect those who can properly Photoshop an image. You know, for a long time, people on the internet thought that that one picture of a shark jumping at a guy on a ladder from a helicopter was real, or that picture that was supposed to be from the WTC as an airplane struck it. A lot of people, experts even, were fooled by some of this stuff. So just because you've "seen a lot of fursits" doesn't make you an expert, and doesn't mean that you can absolutely tell whether something's been photoshopped or not. Yes, even college plays can do a damn good job of make-up. I've got friends who, seeing them in plays, I hardly recognized them. But those make up jobs typically involve making someone who is human look mostly human. Take Blade: All they've got to do is give them longer teeth and paler skin. Any zombie movie: Make them a little more green, or gray, and rotting-ish. Maybe give them a cap that makes it look like part of their skull is missing, and/or hair. Give them white/grey, foggy eye lenses. But that is -nothing- compared to making a human look enough like a dog that you can't tell at first, and it is insignificant compared to the task of putting said make-up on an -infant-, and getting them to hold their position, much less four infants. And even with infant-looking dolls, they would have to be either professionals, or willing to pay a lot of money, because the way those dolls were positioned isn't possible with your typical doll. Please, don't treat me like I'm stupid, and I'll do my best to return the favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:06 am
Admittedly, for someone who has a lot of time and enough dolls, the lack of articulation is possible to get around by cutting up and gluing together the arms and/or legs. But I really don't think that's the case here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:45 am
There's a very easy way to settle it. Pyro, you know where it comes from you said? If you know where it comes from, it should have the artist's name. Doing a simple search should give us the info we need to know whether it's photoshopped or real.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:39 am
Tes It is actually a sculpture done in silicone, with human hair and on leather. I think it's sweet actually. I doubt anyone has any interest in what the artist was actually trying to get at with these pieces, ( there are more) If anyone actually cares a copy of one of her lectures can be found here. If you scroll down to the part where she talks about her "We are Family" exibit, and for this piece specifically "Young Family" Quote: The question I raise, that I am interested in, relates to the distinction between human and animal characteristics, not so much her humanity, but the 'animalness' in us. Perhaps we share traits with her... I don't know how it differs to much with what furries are apparently interested in the exploration of the anthropomorphism of their own characters or fursonas and how the animals in us are parts of our personality. It would be very dissapointing to know that it only counts if the character/fursona in question is beautiful, sexy or a spooge factory. It would be absolutely shameful. Quoted fomr the site that Guest foudn the pic on. Yes Andy, its real. No, its not a photoshop. That was talked about. Nor is it a fur suite as I thought. Its a sculpture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:17 am
Pyrotechnic Oracle Tes It is actually a sculpture done in silicone, with human hair and on leather. I think it's sweet actually. I doubt anyone has any interest in what the artist was actually trying to get at with these pieces, ( there are more) If anyone actually cares a copy of one of her lectures can be found here. If you scroll down to the part where she talks about her "We are Family" exibit, and for this piece specifically "Young Family" Quote: The question I raise, that I am interested in, relates to the distinction between human and animal characteristics, not so much her humanity, but the 'animalness' in us. Perhaps we share traits with her... I don't know how it differs to much with what furries are apparently interested in the exploration of the anthropomorphism of their own characters or fursonas and how the animals in us are parts of our personality. It would be very dissapointing to know that it only counts if the character/fursona in question is beautiful, sexy or a spooge factory. It would be absolutely shameful. Quoted fomr the site that Guest foudn the pic on. Yes Andy, its real. No, its not a photoshop. That was talked about. Nor is it a fur suite as I thought. Its a sculpture. Please don't treat me like I'm stupid because I thought it was Photoshop; You were wrong too. And it still could have been Photoshop. It just wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:31 pm
You're bieng a little too defensive I.Am. I never siad you were stupid, and as far as I know, reading in my past posts, I never treated you liek you were stupid. I don't see how tellign you to consider the other options instead of simply gogin with your first thought it treating you as being stupid. You were constaly saying it was a photoshop edit with out giving much consideration to the other options. You merely went with your first thought and stuck to it. And of coarse I was wrong, never said I wasn't. I was just as arrogant in my statements as you were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:51 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle You're bieng a little too defensive I.Am. I never siad you were stupid, and as far as I know, reading in my past posts, I never treated you liek you were stupid. I don't see how tellign you to consider the other options instead of simply gogin with your first thought it treating you as being stupid. You were constaly saying it was a photoshop edit with out giving much consideration to the other options. You merely went with your first thought and stuck to it. And of coarse I was wrong, never said I wasn't. I was just as arrogant in my statements as you were. Quote: I just so happen to hold that it is a good possibility that Photoshop was involved in the creating of the photo. What in that says that I consider Photoshop to be the only option? I said "...it is a good possibility that Photoshop was involved in the creation..." meaning that I thought there was a -possibility-. Whereas you said, "It's what's called a fur suit." making it sound like that's the only option. I'm sorry but, "Yes Andy, it's real. No, it's not photoshop." sounds condescending to me. Maybe I am being too defensive. I don't know, it's kind of hard to judge that from the inside. But I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:35 pm
To be honest, I was almost convinced it was/is photoshop from a SomethingAwful photoshop thread. I guess someone there just plagerized it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:52 pm
Awww... Holden's cute! And Oliver's beard looks like mine. eek Of course, since he's so blonde, it's probably longer then it looks. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:02 pm
Thanks smile yeah, it is pretty long, but the blonde definatly makes it look shorter. Here's a cartoonized version of one of the pictures. I thought it was pretty cool smile 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:27 pm
eek He's glowing! Is that healthy? sweatdrop
xd I love Photoshop/Paintshop Pro filters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:03 am
Argh that is a terrible picture of me...
And yes the beard is longer but mix crappy camera and lighting with very blonde hair and you get that thing.
I need to get a better picture of myself one of these days sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
