>>3419091Is your monitor calibrated and do you use chrome as a browser? (Firefox displays images properly) The reason I say this is because my monitor is regularly calibrated and I see plenty of detail in the lingerie, so there's something wrong display-wise on your end. I wanted to make sure the problem wasn't mine, so I brought the jpeg back into Photoshop and made the detail more obvious with a curve, so clearly you're mistaken on "crushing the black lingerie into smithereens." Attaching receipts.
>>3419060Yeah, that's where I saw this. I've watched tons of his stuff but more often than not I prefer my method. This technique happened to catch my eye and after experimenting with it I thought it was decent enough to share with the board, I should have credited piximperfect. I also like his color dodge/color burn hue saturation adjustment layers for adding color depth. Been experimenting with that lately.
>>3419061Just because it's the software happens to allow it to happen doesn't mean it's something that one would find out unless they're really digging in to do some experimenting with the program. I don't really see what the correlation is between it being an interesting idea and the software being engineered to allow it is. Really it just shows what an incredible program it is where users are able to discover new ways to approach editing. I fucking love Adobe programmers.
>>3419075>>3419194>>3419079Appreciate the feedback. Not being sarcastic. It's good to know clients may have this reaction to this method. I'll get some professional critiques and see if they see it similarly. I encourage ripping my advice to shreds if you find it offensive. Much rather that then people silently hate it, and me being unaware of the reactions it potentially elicits. That's one of the things I love about /p - the brutal honesty.
