>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>77243 >I know photoshop can't make a crap picture good, but it can make a good picture better. True. But what you're doing here is making mediocre pictures crap.
>You shouldn't treat it with disdain just because you can tell it's been used, or that it is popular Okay, lemme weave you a metaphor.
You know those pictures that parents hang on their fridges, of the little stick figure family and house, where the stick figures are as big as the house, and the sun is a bright yellow ball with individual rays coming off of it, and the sky stops halfway down because the kid hasn't really learned that the sky continues all the way down to the horizon? And all of the faces are orange because that's the closest crayon the kid could find to flesh-tone?
These 'shops are the equivalent of that sort of drawing. I'm not saying they're bad because they're popular, or because you can tell they're photoshopped, I'm saying they're bad because they're bad.
I'm a big proponent of photoshop. It's great for postprocessing to make a good photo great. I'm even fine with its use in such a way that it takes a photograph as a base and turns it into a non-photographic work of digital art. But what you've done here is you've futz with the colors and contrast and basically called it a day.
> Art is always a matter of taste anyway, some people will like it and others won't. Agreed. But let this act as an indicator for you: The only people in the "like it" category for this sort of thing are teenage girls on MySpace and DeviantArt.
>Do you know how difficult it is to find a girl who does actually have purple hair? Yes.
Pro tip: Find a blonde and convince her to dye her hair. Or a brunette and convince her to bleach and then dye her hair.
|