Help with Glamour retouching.

Liquify

ed wrote:

Liquify

This was asked and answered in rec.photo. digital.

Please don’t multiple post.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:04:58 GMT, John McWilliams
wrote:

ed wrote:

Liquify

This was asked and answered in rec.photo. digital.

Please don’t multiple post.

I apologise though i only thought cross posting was frowned upon. I will bare it in mind for future reference.

Hi!

I have searched the web and looked through a couple of books that i have (A Comprehensive Guide To Digital Portrait Photography, Photoshop CD for Photogrpahers, Photoshop CS: The Art of Photographing Women and Digital Nude Photography) but to no avail!

What i am looking for is a guide on how to improve the bust on a woman. I am not referring to some weird balloon type of editing but something subtle for both clothed and unclothed models.

Some of my clients ask for me to give them a little more and none of the guide i have looked at have covered this even though i know it is done a lot in magazines and film posters (the King Arthur film poster springs to mind).

I would be grateful for any help you can offer even if it is just pointing me in the direction of the correct Photoshop tool for the job. A photography webside did mention a ‘sphereize’ tool but i could not find that in CS.

Many thanks,

Graham

Please don’t multiple post.

"44DD" posted:
"…
Follow it and you turn
Twiggy into Pam Anderson.
…"

HeHeHeHeHe …

That’s what some ‘Plastic Surgeon’ did …

HeHeHeHeHe …

On September 13 2004, John McWilliams wrote:

Please don’t multiple post.

Why? It’s applicable to both groups. Although perhaps this one more than the other. He’s likely to get some duplicate answers, but he’s likely to get answers unique to the viewpoint of each group as well. I’m no teacher but I’ve taught people various subjects long enough to know that the more ways you can explain something the more likely ONE of those ways will be found useful to and better understood by the student.
Stop being a newsgroup nazi.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:54:53 -0500, (Carl
Miller) wrote:

On September 13 2004, John McWilliams wrote:

Please don’t multiple post.

Why? It’s applicable to both groups. Although perhaps this one more than the other. He’s likely to get some duplicate answers, but he’s likely to get answers unique to the viewpoint of each group as well. I’m no teacher but I’ve taught people various subjects long enough to know that the more ways you can explain something the more likely ONE of those ways will be found useful to and better understood by the student.
Stop being a newsgroup nazi.

Indeed you are correct! I posted my question to this group first as it has Photoshop in the title and then i followed it up in the other group.

I got a few interesting answers in the other group and one or two in here but had i not multi-posted i would have missed out on a few suggestions! 🙂

Cross-posting — to two or three select, relevant groups, unlike the scatter-gun xposting characteristic of trolls and screed-spammers — is still preferable to multiposting IMO, because the suggestions made from different perspectives can ‘cross-fertilize’ that way, everyone having a better idea of the context of the question as well as being able to avoid redundancy. Moreover, xposted questions can often make for an opportunity for readers of each group to learn something from the others.

Engelkott wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 00:04:58 GMT, John McWilliams
wrote:

ed wrote:

Liquify

This was asked and answered in rec.photo. digital.

Please don’t multiple post.

I apologise though i only thought cross posting was frowned upon. I will bare it in mind for future reference.

Multi-posting is worse than cross-posting :).

Cheers,
Nicholas Sherlock

In article ,
Engelkott wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:54:53 -0500, (Carl
Miller) wrote:

On September 13 2004, John McWilliams wrote:

Please don’t multiple post.

Why? It’s applicable to both groups. Although perhaps this one more than the other. He’s likely to get some duplicate answers, but he’s likely to get answers unique to the viewpoint of each group as well. I’m no teacher but I’ve taught people various subjects long enough to know that the more ways you can explain something the more likely ONE of those ways will be found useful to and better understood by the student.
Stop being a newsgroup nazi.

Indeed you are correct! I posted my question to this group first as it has Photoshop in the title and then i followed it up in the other group.

I got a few interesting answers in the other group and one or two in here but had i not multi-posted i would have missed out on a few suggestions! 🙂

Cross-posting — to two or three select, relevant groups, unlike the scatter-gun xposting characteristic of trolls and screed-spammers — is still preferable to multiposting IMO, because the suggestions made from different perspectives can ‘cross-fertilize’ that way, everyone having a better idea of the context of the question as well as being able to avoid redundancy. Moreover, xposted questions can often make for an opportunity for readers of each group to learn something from the others.
—
Odysseus