Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Pollux on January 19, 2007, 06:08:59 PM
-
Do the arms look shady?
(http://i3.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/85/e6/316b_1_sbl.JPG)
-
yes, its dark, therefore there is some shade on his arms. Looks HUGE
-
that same pic has been around for years so id say no. his arms were some of the best ever.
-
1991rs...
I love your avatar.
The True Adonis looks like the mouse from that kids movie The Secret of Nimh. :D
(http://i6.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/85/ag/1468_1.JPG)
-
64 pages of classic Arnold, without an ad between them. Gotta love it.
-
64 pages of classic Arnold, without an ad between them. Gotta love it.
68... but who's counting. ;D
-
Is that out now?
-
Is that out now?
MuscleMag states not until January 30.
But you know issues also come a few days before.
-
MuscleMag states not until January 30.
But you know issues also come a few days before.
AWESOME I GONNA CHECK IT OUT!!! THANKS!
-
68... but who's counting. ;D
Did you make it to page 68 before *finishing*?
-
The pic is absolutely shopped. Sorry.
The sad thing is, the real pic is awesome.. no need for the nonsense.
-
The pic is absolutely shopped. Sorry.
The sad thing is, the real pic is awesome.. no need for the nonsense.
post it.
-
lol i dunno about that, theres another pic around with a similar pose, and it makes his arms look f**kin huge
-
Nah, not shopped. Though I did think so at first. The reason it looks shady is cause the pic's flipped horizontally (I think). Here's a similar shot, the right way around and flipped:
-
That famous photo was taken by Robert Nailon at Tony's Gym in Sydney in 1974. Someone took a flash photo at the same time that gave it that impressive lighting.
-
They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.
-
They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.
What a dumb move.
-
What a dumb move.
And they didn't do it very well.
-
That famous photo was taken by Robert Nailon at Tony's Gym in Sydney in 1974. Someone took a flash photo at the same time that gave it that impressive lighting.
Cool. Thanks, Vince.
-
They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.
That's fuckin' lame. I like the natural look he has -- high as a kite.
-
Yeah, shouldn't of done the eyes. Pure is the way to go.
-
Looks to me like they edit the photos more and more, where we gonna end up with all this? If Playboy can fix their models so they doesn't even show a birthmark and looks like plastic dolls, then surely they can edit photos of bodybuilders and start editing midsections etc. maybe even bring up lagging bodyparts to have the bodybuilders improve on their symmetry ::)
And surely they won't stop at the cover, they'll fix all pictures. We'll end up with photos of Ronnies "monster calves"
Bluto disapproves.
-
to bad this picture wasn't brought up in the arnold vs frank thread
-
I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.
-
I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.
but.... we look at playboy for the models bodies (or the articles if your a parent) and people look at bbing mags for the pictures so it's the same thing really
-
but.... we look at playboy for the models bodies (or the articles if your a parent) and people look at bbing mags for the pictures so it's the same thing really
No it's not. And Playboy sucks >:(
-
If they took the time to shop the eyes then the pic is shopped somewhere else.
-
They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.
the master has spoken
-
it's not the same picture, they probably took a few picture at the same time (rapide shutter) , the one on the cover, he look at the camera, the other one, he look at the mirror....... if it's the same picture they had to tilt the head too and more!
-
Thats gotta be the best pic of Arnold ever taken!
-
Thats gotta be the best pic of Arnold ever taken!
Correction one of the best pix ;)
-
I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.
The only photoshop done on the Flex cover was to colorize the background, otherwise that image is real and shown as is...a great Albert Busek shot
C
-
Albert Busek's Arnold photos kick-ass.
-
This thread should be a sticky!
-
Next you'll be suggesting that they Photoshopped Heather Locklear on the cover of Shape...
(http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2007/01/2heather_locklear.jpg)
-
This thread should be a sticky!
Yeah... sticky this thread mod(s).
-
Only one way to be sure... and here it is. I just enlarged and rotated the image to match the original copy I had, no other changes ("morphs") have been made. Looks like they filled out the chest and bloated the right arm a little (besides the face, obviously).
Why the hell they had to make these "improvements" is beyond me. It's not like the original isn't impressive enough. Retards.
-
damn...major props on putting that display together dude. that is fucking amazing use of modern technology right there.
-
I don't think the muscle was enlarged. Looks like they just brightened it. I do think this photoshopping is getting rediculous though. Oh well, it's not like bodybuilding isn't fake anyway with the rediculous judging descisions and synthol.
-
they took a little bit off of his waist in the back too.
-
I hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so. And why did they do it? They're stupid, that's why.
-
The only photoshop done on the Flex cover was to colorize the background, otherwise that image is real and shown as is...a great Albert Busek shot
C
They even tricked a pro. >:( The original pic is so cool, and now the cover is just smoke & mirrors.
-
They even tricked a pro. >:( The original pic is so cool, and now the cover is just smoke & mirrors.
no they didn't...I was refering to the Flex cover out right now that someone mentioned in this thread as well...I don't comment on competitors covers one way or the othersw, it isn't professional.
I know what we do with our covers
C
-
Deadlift...
Awesome comparison. Thanks.
-
DEADLIFT you need to spend more time on photoshop. If you look closely the MuscleMag cover is on a slight angle that is what gives the impression that the arm is bigger etc. Then it also looks like the mag was scanned. Given the thickness of the magazine it could also distord the image somewhat. Other then the eyes it is 100% the same image and not shopped unless the shoped the original in 197something.
-
I can tell you flat out...the body was NOT photoshopped in the least, regardless of what the comparison says of two pics, neither of which are the actual original photograph.
-
The both lower pecs looks shopped, as seen in the comparison.
-
I can tell you flat out...the body was NOT photoshopped in the least, regardless of what the comparison says of two pics, neither of which are the actual original photograph.
If neither are the orginal, how can either not be shopped? ???
-
Looks like the brightness was turned up, causing it to look fuller. I don't think it was shopped to increase muscle size.
-
on the Zane Scale of Epic Photoshopped Picture this picture gets a 3 out of 10. 1 being an untouched picture and a 10 being any current picture of Frank Zane. i give it 3 for the color change and the eyeball tomfoolery.
-
Perhaps this will make it clearer. I've brightened the original image -- no other changes (yes, it IS the original). It should be obvious that the size and SHAPE of the muscles has actually changed -- the bottom of the pecs have been dragged down and the right arm has been bloated and the biceps and triceps dragged down to look fuller and longer.
Anyway, draw your own conclusions. Seems clear to me.
-
Looks the same to me with the exception of puffing out his chest a bit and adding just a lil' *umph* into his lower bicep, as well as the tricep, near the elbow.
-
I don't see why they would feel the need to modify the pic. He looked great just the way he was.
-
I don't see why they would feel the need to modify the pic. He looked great just the way he was.
absolutely dude, this is an example of how out of control our extremist culture has become. I feel sorry for young people that are being unindated with this kind of imagery and have no clue it is all computer generated.
I think it is time everyone start writing to these editors and tell them to stop lying to us. Stop feeding us bullshit!
-
Perhaps this will make it clearer. I've brightened the original image -- no other changes (yes, it IS the original). It should be obvious that the size and SHAPE of the muscles has actually changed -- the bottom of the pecs have been dragged down and the right arm has been bloated and the biceps and triceps dragged down to look fuller and longer.
Anyway, draw your own conclusions. Seems clear to me.
Of course it was changed you freaks! If they are going to change the eyes, they changed alot of other stuff. Including his puffed out moon face and lips. Sublte changes, but none the less, changes.
-
This says a lot about our perception and views when even The Greatest Bodybuilder of the 20th Century: Arnold Schwarzenegger needs a lil' touch-up for a magazine cover.
-
Says a lot about their willingness to bs us. Maybe scribbler knew, maybe not. This much is certain - he comes here as a salesman.
5 out of 10 Zanes. Nice work deadlift.
-
If only the kids today could find out about how cool the 70's were for bodybuilding. They'd understand the sly look in his eyes and appreciate the photography skills of the time. Hell, do the kids of today even know Arnold Schwarzenegger was a bodybuilder?
There's a zillion more pics they could have chosen of Arnold. Why they felt the need to choose one only to touch it up, albeit slightly, is amazing.
-
If neither are the orginal, how can either not be shopped? ???
No, no. I meant that a scan of a picture of a copy of the original pic and a scna of the original pic. Both can get distorted. I meant neither that was used here was the actual 8x10 or the negative.
-
I don't see why they would feel the need to modify the pic. He looked great just the way he was.
To have the "youth" wanna be just like him and push their bodies to the limit where they end up in the hospital? It's horrible how they try to "perfect" a human body in a pic that's already perfected in reality to its fullest potential but no its never good enough for the "media" ::)
-
It's horrible how they try to "perfect" a human body in a pic that's already perfected in reality to its fullest potential but no its never good enough for the "media" ::)
You're exactly right. It just floors me that of all the bodybuilders out there, even Arnold -- dubbed to have the most PERFECT body in the world -- would need a lil' touch-up.
-
Perhaps this will make it clearer. I've brightened the original image -- no other changes (yes, it IS the original). It should be obvious that the size and SHAPE of the muscles has actually changed -- the bottom of the pecs have been dragged down and the right arm has been bloated and the biceps and triceps dragged down to look fuller and longer.
Anyway, draw your own conclusions. Seems clear to me.
I am telling you bro when they scanned the mag, because of its thickness, it distorted the pic a slight tiny bit. That is the reason why you cannot align the pics 100%.
-
I am telling you bro when they scanned the mag, because of its thickness, it distorted the pic a slight tiny bit. That is the reason why you cannot align the pics 100%.
How do you explain the eyes?
-
How do you explain the eyes?
I already touched on that subject if you bothered to read my posts in this thread you would know! >:( rraaa
-
I already touched on that subject if you bothered to read my posts in this thread you would know! >:( rraaa
I did not.
-
Alexxx...
I think some people just like to skip over your posts. :D
-
Alexxx...
I think some people just like to skip over your posts. :D
This makes no sense. They are the most interesting posts on here.
-
They brightened and smoothed the picture out, but that hardly explains the extra size on his lower chest.
-
If only the kids today could find out about how cool the 70's were for bodybuilding. They'd understand the sly look in his eyes and appreciate the photography skills of the time. Hell, do the kids of today even know Arnold Schwarzenegger was a bodybuilder?
There's a zillion more pics they could have chosen of Arnold. Why they felt the need to choose one only to touch it up, albeit slightly, is amazing.
Exactly. Good post. They shouldn't have altered the expression. He looks like a robot....or a terminator now.
I agree with alexxx though, I don't believe the body was enhanced. It's the scanner.