# Opinion about morph photos?...



## nascardude123 (Oct 20, 2005)

Hi all,

How many of you like "morphed" or modified photos?.... I mean ones that show enlarged body parts, such as bellies, boobs, and the like....

I think it is fun to make them, especially for those gurls that are foodees and feedees that wonder what they look like with more weight added on.... As I have been doing this for a few years (not so much recently), alot of women have exception to this form of art.... saying that it is not acceptable... 

What is your opinion... ??


:eat1: nascardude123 :eat1:


----------



## Coop (Oct 20, 2005)

I like to morph the bottom area.


----------



## New_Exposures (Oct 20, 2005)

From the original content makers standpoint, i'm not fond of them at all 

You spend thousands on a model, lighting equipment and camera to get a pic JUST the way you want you want it and then go into Photoshop and spend time to tweak the colors, deepen the shadows and what not until you got the image so that you are FINALLY happy with it. 

And then someone else comes along and messes your vision up. 

When you spend a LOT of time on your photos, you dont want to see someone else playing around with them at al


----------



## bigwideland (Oct 20, 2005)

If you are using images that are clearly professional as per the past post then approval to put back in the public domain is a good idea, but pratical may be not, depending if you know the source.

Personal I love well done morphs you can see weights that in real life could not be optained, can you morph a whole movie file or would that just be to much work?


----------



## Zoom (Oct 20, 2005)

I used to like morphed photos, but only if they looked as realistic as the original. Since this happened almost 1% of the time, I hated most of them with a vengeance.

For a short time I dabbled in making my own morphs, both of photos and of artwork, which was very interesting and difficult to do. But then I realized people were not receptive to them, and there was nowhere to put them without the permission of the originals' owners because of copyright issues.

So I abandoned doing morphs, and concentrated instead on original FA art for a while.

Currently I do not like any morphs, because the realistic ones are starting to look _too_ realistic and I can't tell any more if a picture is a morph or not when someone looks especially supersized.


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 20, 2005)

New_Exposures said:


> From the original content makers standpoint, i'm not fond of them at all
> 
> You spend thousands on a model, lighting equipment and camera to get a pic JUST the way you want you want it and then go into Photoshop and spend time to tweak the colors, deepen the shadows and what not until you got the image so that you are FINALLY happy with it.
> 
> ...



i love juggmaster as much as the next hot-blooded FA but come on. your "vision"? i'm all for gutting sacred cows, so don't even compare yourself to a mona lisa someone's painting a moustache on. i definitely appreciate your work (and the beautiful models), just so you know this isn't a personal attack. but i'm a songwriter and kids who've remixed my stuff..big deal. it's a reinterpretation and it's often entertaining if not a monument of perfection. occasionally they do something you never would've thought of. if you want the original idea, you look at your version of the pic or listen to your version of the song. morphs are fun and creative. you don't have to be turned on by a half-assed weightgain picture to be amused by it. plus, it's not like you can make your models gain or anything. maybe if someone could change the lighting in a picture electronically i could feel your pain but ah-ah. if someone adds a photoshopped belly, that has nothing to do with your work. people are still paying for your pictures, the morphs aren't replacing them. what you worked all night on is still there, and someone else tweaked a copy of it. don't look if you don't like. morphs are one of the most fun and lighthearted things about our scene.


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 20, 2005)

Zoom said:


> Currently I do not like any morphs, because the realistic ones are starting to look _too_ realistic and I can't tell any more if a picture is a morph or not when someone looks especially supersized.



that's a bad thing? morphs aren't making real bbws obsolete anytime soon, so relax. morphs are integral to the fact that 90% of feederism and weightgain fetishism works in a fantasy domain. personally, the more realistic they look (marksmorphs.com is probably the piece de resistance), i believe the better they are. and most of the time they snatch up unsuspecting skinny models hehe.


----------



## ataraxia (Oct 20, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> that's a bad thing? morphs aren't making real bbws obsolete anytime soon, so relax. morphs are integral to the fact that 90% of feederism and weightgain fetishism works in a fantasy domain. personally, the more realistic they look (marksmorphs.com is probably the piece de resistance), i believe the better they are. and most of the time they snatch up unsuspecting skinny models hehe.


This, of course, is just another case of the old "better if real" argument. It's the idea that, even if you can't tell, the "real thing" is somehow magically better than any product of artifice.

Interestingly, many artists actually draw the other side of this - that any creation of art is better than anything simply found in reality.

Honestly, the truth is in the impact, right? How can you tell what anything is, except by how it affects you?


----------



## Santaclear (Oct 20, 2005)

I feel they compete unfairly with cartoons and ought to be criminalized.


----------



## Deidrababe (Oct 21, 2005)

I LOOOOVE to have my ass Morphed! So, anyone who EVER wants to morph me a bigger ass, have fun and send the pictures!

XOXOXOX

Deeds


----------



## Emma (Oct 21, 2005)

I really don't like them, and I don't know why. :eat1:


----------



## Wilson Barbers (Oct 21, 2005)

Santaclear said:


> I feel they compete unfairly with cartoons and ought to be criminalized.



Though I once wrote a "Fat Magic" fantasy about morphing, I've gotta admit I personally find good well-done graphics to be more effective at visually communicating the weight gain fantasy. Even the best photo morphs have an airiness that works against their imitations of fatness; I'd much rather see a talented FA artist do his/her thing with pen or brush (or digital pen or brush). . .


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Oct 21, 2005)

Zoom said:


> I used to like morphed photos, but only if they looked as realistic as the original. Since this happened almost 1% of the time, I hated most of them with a vengeance.



I agree with Zoom's estimation, though with considerably less vengeance. Truth is, I wish I knew how to do 'em. I'm curious about what I'd look like, uhm... let's say morphed.


----------



## Jes (Oct 21, 2005)

Boteroesque Babe said:


> I agree with Zoom's estimation, though with considerably less vengeance. Truth is, I wish I knew how to do 'em. I'm curious about what I'd look like, uhm... let's say morphed.



I wanna know what I'd look like, skinny. I've always kinda wondered! Skinny with a HUGE RACK, of course.


----------



## New_Exposures (Oct 21, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> it's a reinterpretation and it's often entertaining if not a monument of perfection. occasionally they do something you never would've thought of. if you want the original idea, you look at your version of the pic or listen to your version of the song. morphs are fun and creative. .


 
Someone making MONEY off of my efforts is NOT a reinterpetation, its a rip off and thats what most of the morph sites do by grabbing others pics, morphing them and then getting paid through banner ads. The morph is STILL based on the original copyright holders works and the copyright holder gets NONE of that ad money. The morph site get paid off of the the orginal creators efforts 

And i'm certain that if you heard some of your music used in a commercial jingle in a slightly altered form but CLEARLY your music and they were making money from it, you'd be pissed too. 

The photographer works DAMNED hard to get the photos to look the way they do and is rightfully proud of his work. Whether or not its the Mona Lisa is irrelevant, the morphs ignore copyright law and disregards the effort it took to create the original image. If someone doesn't care that their pics of morphed, thats fine.. go for it. BUt I think most people who really put time and money into their photos would care


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Oct 21, 2005)

Jes said:


> I wanna know what I'd look like, skinny. I've always kinda wondered! Skinny with a HUGE RACK, of course.



I used to be skinny, and though I was considerably younger, it was, in fact, after photography was invented. So I've got that covered.


----------



## Webmaster (Oct 21, 2005)

nascardude123 said:


> How many of you like "morphed" or modified photos?....


I love morphing and morphed pics. It probably goes back to my earliest sexual fantasies where I used to trace Playboy cartoon girls and then alter the drawings into whatever fantasy directions my imagination drove me. 

These days we have Photoshop and numerous other image manipulation programs, and that makes playing with imagery infinitely more fascinating for the drawing-impaired. It can be fascinating and exciting to do what-ifs and try out things. 

Needless to say, there is a difference between taking someone's hallowed masterpiece and altering it, and I think the general rule these days is that morphed imagery of celebrities and other assorted public persons is a no-no. Rules, of course, change all the time, and there's expression of free speech and so on and so on. No need to go into that as most morphing is done for private entertainment and consumption, or perhaps within small circles of likeminded souls (see numerous yahoo groups dedicated to morphed materials, or the old Acotto site, or the still existing BMA archives or whatever it's called).

As for technique and stuff, I appreciate good work as much as the next person, but I am not a stickler for total perfection. It's for fun, after all.


----------



## Johnny Robo (Oct 22, 2005)

I like them if they are well done.


----------



## Mr. Brian (Oct 22, 2005)

as B-Enhanced and most were well received. Mostly for my own viewing now and even at that not too often. Never sought to make any money with any of those or anything else I did for that matter. On occasion I will still submit one or two here and there.. With the model's permission of course.


Mr. Brian

Snapple Real Fact #187 _There are over 61,000 pizzerias in the U.S._


----------



## tinkle (Oct 23, 2005)

I'm not in favour of them myself... I like things to be real.


----------



## zynth (Oct 24, 2005)

I have nothing against "morphed" pictures, it's always nice to see a relatively skinny specimen stepping over to bbw or even ssbbw with a quick help from computer technology. 

Honestly though the real deal is far more rewarding. Le Natural is by far the best.


----------



## Stormy (Oct 25, 2005)

Mr. Brian said:


> as B-Enhanced and most were well received. Mostly for my own viewing now and even at that not too often. Never sought to make any money with any of those or anything else I did for that matter. On occasion I will still submit one or two here and there.. With the model's permission of course.


I used to not like any cartoons or morphs until I saw some of your art.  Although I still generally prefer the real thing, the attached images rank right up there with the best photos IMO (hope you don't mind me re-posting them). So maybe I'd like some morphs if you did them.  

View attachment feederfantasy.jpg


View attachment Harem.jpg


----------



## Mr. Brian (Oct 25, 2005)

Stormy said:


> I used to not like any cartoons or morphs until I saw some of your art.  Although I still generally prefer the real thing, the attached images rank right up there with the best photos IMO (hope you don't mind me re-posting them). So maybe I'd like some morphs if you did them.


 
Why thank you. I don't mind you posting them. They exist in various places around the net far out of my control. 

Those were a sort of different direction I went in for a while. Not really morphs per se but digital compilations of many pics overlayed. The subjects , while having some borrowed bit of real pics (eyes, noses, etc. and not from anyone person in particular) were mostly digitally painted. Not the true clone and stretch type morphed pic. 







Many of the of the ones that I did do had a large amount of digital painting done in conjunction with cloning. Sampling colors and creating a matching pallette. I would study what I thought were similar body types but fatter to try and come up with what I thought would look right. "How would fat accumulate on this frame?" Ususally many versions before I was finished. 

I don't really do much anymore. Once in a while. Lots of others do them and very well.

Mr. Brian 

Snapple Real Fact #1 _A Goldfish's attention span is three seconds_


----------



## Totmacher (Oct 25, 2005)

A good morph is like an honest man: hard to find, but potentially worth the search.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 5, 2005)

Can't believe I missed this thread earlier...

First off, if you want something morphed, SEND IT TO ME. I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO IT. For the ladies, that is. I reserve the right to reject any image as something I don't want to work on. PM me and we'll work out details.

OK, that clears the permissions hurdle.

Speaking of permissions, in the commercial work I do, the client MUST own the image, full stop. But in my website stuff, I can rip into any celebrity I choose because I'm satirical when I do it. I'm providing social commentary on the mores of what is attractive or not when I produce images of stars in bigger bodies. If the image I use is modified 15% or more, I'm in under the First Amendment wire with a satirical piece. Muhuhahahaha.

But what about taking random models and morphing them? No. They're NOT celebrities, so they're not good satirical targets. Artistic models, you betcha. I cruise lots of stock photo sites for interesting poses and scenery, but that won't be morph-fodder for me. Like Mr. New_Exposures said, there's a lot of work involved in professional photography, and the artist should be compensated for his work.

But a really good morph isn't just selecting a section and smacking it with a bootleg copy of KPT Goo. It's taking the lighting and design of the photographer and re-interpreting it so the end result has as photorealistic a feel to it as the original photo did. This means going back, burning, dodging, adding noise, blurring here and there, unsharp masking this or that. 

Photo retouching *is* an art, and one with an amazing history. Some of the most chilling morphs ever done are in the book, "The Commissar Vanishes", dealing with how Stalin commissioned massive photo retouching to remove evidences certain persons ever existed. What they did with razor blades and airbrushes in the 1930's is truly amazing, and sets a real standard for those who like to remix their photography. 

And Acotto's site ruled, back in the day...


----------



## LurkingBBW (Nov 5, 2005)

Why morph when you can see the real thing? So few of them look real - to me anyway.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 5, 2005)

True. Which is why I don't do those ones.


----------



## Johnny Robo (Nov 10, 2005)

Could you do porn or fetish stars? I'd like to see quite a few of them fleshed up.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 10, 2005)

Johnny Robo said:


> Could you do porn or fetish stars? I'd like to see quite a few of them fleshed up.



I don't do nudes or z-rated stuff. Personal choice. I also don't like doing the pr0n stars, as they tend to have really cheesy poses. I also don't like morphing random strangers, as they're not deserving of satire.


----------



## cebe (Nov 11, 2005)

Hi, what said Picasso's models when viewing the painting??
Morphs are an "artistic" view, not the reality. Why don't recognize the right to a photographer to do what painter have done forever? With some rules that is. For exemple, the respect of the source, if not your own, the respect of the model, identifying the picture as a morph, aso.
I've done many morphs myself, just for the fun, to "see" what will never exist. I've morphed myself, so I know the impact on our self-representation, and I understand people who not want to be morphed. But with others (hi Deidra), when well done, what a pleasure :smitten:


----------

