File :-(, x, )
Photograph/Photoshop Monster
I wanted to see what It'd look like on the internet. All done by me, picture and photoshop and such.

Except the couple, I'm not that lucky.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelFE190/X750Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution358 dpiVertical Resolution358 dpiImage Created2007:08:13 14:44:28Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/3.1Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1433Image Height2150RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
dear /p/, what's it like to hold a girl in your arms?
>> Anonymous
>>68782
it's awesome. You should try it sometime.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Um, well, my opinion is that it sucks a lot.
Firstly, what's the point of all that? Secondly, it's badly done.
>> Anonymous
>>68801
Seconded. The grain and B&W was totally unnecessary.

Also, harpoons, hamburgers, etc.
>> Anonymous
The grain really takes away from the image.
The outlines are really jagged and don't work well with the rest of the image. Maybe some slight blurring of the edges would help.. and just B&W, minus the grain for the people.
>> Anonymous
>>68801
third
everything is super clichéd, don't know exactly what you were going for.
>> Anonymous
>>68778
/p/ doesn't stand for photoshop. Even if you did take the picture, it's pretty much whored out with post-processing or whatever you did to it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>68844
While I'm normally very much pro-photoshop-on-/p/, this goes beyond "shopped photograph" and into the realm of "digital painting", so I agree that /p/ isn't really the place for it.

Oh, and also it's not very good. But that's a secondary concern.
>> Anonymous
I think it sucks in general. End of story.
>> Anonymous
Jesus this is bad.
>> Anonymous
I kind of like it. Good Job
>> Anonymous
The B&W noise grain effect was a little much. Pull back a little.
>> Anonymous
>>68778
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
sagesagesagesagesagesagesagesagesage
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>68778

I thought it was pretty remarkable photoshop work. However, it didn't have quite enough filters, so I fixed it and threw on the rest.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelFE190/X750Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.1Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution358 dpiVertical Resolution358 dpiImage Created2007:08:15 21:50:55Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/3.1Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length6.30 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1433Image Height2150RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>69208
Coulda' used more lens flare.
>> Anonymous
>>68979<< OP

To answer your question, it looks WORSE on the interwebs, if you thought it was good enough to post on our beloved /p/. Take a photo of your cat or a close-up of a flower or a sunset... ANYTHING BUT BLATANT FAIL!
>> Anonymous
This may not be the the place for this photo, or the best photoshoping job in the world, however I love the idea of the composistion. It's a kind of 'love trancending time and space' thought. Props.