Broken Doll wrote:
Way more beautiful than me, gosh they're perfect.

But I still beat 'em at facial expressions!

CGI doesn't hold a candle to you.. 

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

And that odd little thing that a model does on the spur of the moment that just makes a shot.

By the way, the site wanted to download seven cookies to my computer.

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

They are real human models from the neck up.

"The real model’s head has been superimposed on the body and the skin tone has been digitally altered to match her complexion."

http://mashable.com/2011/12/08/hm-cg-models/

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though.

Have you ever seen a high fashion runway show or editorial?

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

They sure got that pose down.

VikyL wrote:

They are real human models from the neck up.

"The real model’s head has been superimposed on the body and the skin tone has been digitally altered to match her complexion."

http://mashable.com/2011/12/08/hm-cg-models/

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

Hmm.

Maybe I could use that technology for everything BUT the model. Sort of switch it around.

Misty R H wrote:

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

You're welcome to think whatever you want about their facial expressions.  They are, however, one of the only parts of the image that are not CGI.  In criticizing them, you are criticizing the modeling ability of the live human models, not the CGI aspect at all.

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

What are you so happy about? Did you actually think that they hired a photographer to shoot a model that doesn't exist in reality? That models would be jobless, and photographers would be sitting pretty? Do you really get your jollies from the misfortune of others?

I don't know you personally, so I can't accurately judge your character. Having said that; what you posted is so insensitive and ignorant that I truly pity you.

G

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Ah! but how often does your computer give you a hug and a kiss on the cheek after a good shoot!

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though.

Then Kristen Stewart's replacement is here!  Her days as an actress are numbered.

The Grace Gabbana wrote:

And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

What are you so happy about? Did you actually think that they hired a photographer to shoot a model that doesn't exist in reality? That models would be jobless, and photographers would be sitting pretty? Do you really get your jollies from the misfortune of others?

I don't know you personally, so I can't accurately judge your character. Having said that; what you posted is so insensitive and ignorant that I truly pity you.

G

as it says...

To save on costs—and perhaps assembly time—Swedish retailing giant IKEA created computer-generated images of its furniture for the new catalog, RATHER THAN HIRE A PHOTOGRAPHER. By next year, a quarter of the scenes depicted in IKEA’s print and online advertising will be digitally drawn rather than photographed, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. In fact, IKEA says it is able to better depict its products with computer images than actual photography.

toesup wrote:
Can I get a plus size version please...

Nothing will EVER beat the feeling of that great shot of some real flesh and blood model, the curve of her body, the look of her eye, the shape of her lips.. need I go on?..

Bahhh.. CGI, NO WAY!..

+1

Har Marshal wrote:
If your computer locks up prior to a virtual photo shoot, does that count as flaking?  Just wondering what MM forums will be about in the future . . .

LOL

netmodel wrote:
yep, you're done. Computers do better than you models could ever do.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-comp … 2012-08-28

;-)

Lol, yeah right. No one notice how nearly every example in the article came with a negative reason why it won't be accepted?

The problem with journalism these days is most of it's based on guess work and not hard facts. Yes these technologies exist, but they rarely ever replace. A worse case scenario is we all retrain as CAD specialists or CGI specialists.

Since the public is turning away from retouching producing an impossible body image, you guys expect the public to embrace a completely fake image?

IKEA suffer from an image problem associated with all flat -packed manufacturers. People almost expect their assembled item to not be as good as image. Plus it's much easy to CGI a non living entity.

Cinema, we are yet to see a convincing character, a lot of CGI is detectable to the human eye, we just accept we have to suspend belief for a few seconds. Didn't Ridley Scott do a lot of the effects old school to make Prometheus as believable as possible?

If you ever get a chance to go to a film premier you'll see the crazy effect these actors/actresses have on their adoring public, not so easy to replace with CGI as people would have you think.

Makes a great article though for their "Personal Finance" section.

The Grace Gabbana wrote:
And so is your photography career. When models become obsolete, so do photographers.

While I agree with some of your original post, I do think the above point is misguided. There are other subjects that can be photographed.

When models is replaced by Barbiesoft Inc's Leticia version 2.654, Model Mayhem will resurface after being rebranded as "Bowl of Fruit Mayhem"

Seriously though, I doesn't matter what the Industry does, because Internet Modeling is a separate, independent industry. They like to call it a site full of professionals when in fact its a site full of hobbyists, they are not interested in software.

Misty R H wrote:

I agree that they look dead in the eyes, even if the heads are human.  If perfection is what is desired CGI is the way to go, but it seems kind of cold.

Sorry. Don't know if it was said yet, but perfection is legend. I find and relish imperfection as a celebration of each person. The challenge is to bring that imperfection into the beauty as well.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Pssh...

This was foretold in 1981.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

We had PLENTY of time to change career choices.

Don't forget S1MONE with Al Pacino.

Rays Fine Art wrote:
Ah! but how often does your computer give you a hug and a kiss on the cheek after a good shoot!

Some things are priceless, for everything else there's CGI

Shoot me, I never get those priceless moments after any shoots

La Lana  wrote:
Takes away jobs for photographers too...

Yep, I saw that right away in the article.  Instead of hiring a photographer, they drew the damn furniture.

Venessa M Baez wrote:
They look dead in the eyes though. Human nature and relativity is one thing a computer will never be able to duplicate. Hopefully.

+ I agree, good call.

Laurel Rae wrote:
it doesn't matter...I'm 24 anyways ...it's about time I retire anyways

Oh shit I'm 26 ................