General Faking Chat, Tips, & Resources

[sackett]

We're going to give this a try. What would you like to know about the art of faking?? We have numerous fakirs here, of varying skill levels, so someone is bound to be able to point you in the direction you wish to know.

I'll start out by stating some very basic tenets of faking.

1. Choose a HS (head shot) that somewhat resembles the HS of the body model.
2. Watch your lighting. If the BS (body shot) is taken outdoors, don't try to place a HS of a celeb taken inside.
3. If the BS and the HS are pointing opposite directions, vertically flip the BS, not the HS. Celebs facial features are very recognizable, if you flip the face, it's going to usually look awkward.
4. Choose a HS that is larger than the BS. It is always better to downsize the head to fit the body rather than expanding the HS.
5. Hairstyles make the celeb!! Try to use as much of the celeb's hair as possible.

Other hints....

Save your work often!!

The more layers you use, the easier it is to correct mistakes. Layers are a bit confusing, hell, I'm not good at it yet either, yet once you learn how to use them, it'll open the door to creating very intricate fakes.

Make a logo or signature for your work. This is a bit of a holdover from back in the day when guys were afraid their work would be passed off as being real, and the law was unclear whether faking was even legal. (Thus why a lot of the older fakes have a disclaimer saying that the fake is a parody... fakirs were covering their asses). But it's also a matter of pride. You've created this thing, sign the thing... be a part of the community.

Most of all, don't be afraid to ask for help or advice. Most fakirs want to share their craft, and those that don't won't say anything anyway. So ask!!

[echoes]

i will help with what i can too. i've been an amateur graphics designer/artist for about 8 years. i've been faking for about 1-2 years now (on and off). i have helped some people before with advice about faking before.

sackett, i do have to say that i am quite impressed by #3 (and #4 to a lesser extent). it represents an advanced knowledge of photography/faking.

[sackett]

Another thing I notice a lot of new fakirs doing is taking an existing fake and altering it. This could range anywhere from replacing a whole new HS...to making it "better" thru sharpening or smudging parts (or the whole image)... to cropping out site logos or names (or dicks).

This is bad form. With the thousands of celebrity HS and millions of naked pictures out on the web, there is absolutely no reason to use some else's work in any way. I know a lot of new fakers use their favorite fakir's work as a base to start from, because they want their fakes to look that way, too. This shortcut doesn't work, because there is no way the new faker can replicate all the steps and levels their favorite fakir used to create the image in the first place. It is much better and satisfying to find your own picture and HS and slap the two together. You will be extremely displeased for about 3 fakes, but you'll eventually(depending on how diligently you work at it) develop a style that works for you.

And almost every faking site on the web has a tutorial section that will cut the learning curve in half as well as a WIP (work in progress) forum where a fakir can post his work and get honest feedback and usually helpful hints. It is against the policy of Famous Board to publish links or recommendations of other sites, but Google is a wonderful thing...or PM a buddy from this board to find out where HE goes to get the fakes posted here.

[echoes]

i think this is absolutely necessary to include what sackett just wrote. if you're going to save in JPEG format, i'd recommend reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_co...sy_compression

in plain english non-tech jargon:
saving in JPEG or other lossy formats throws away (visual) quality, even if the highest quality settings are used. i'd recommend using PNG as i do, it is lossless, which means it DOES NOT/CAN NOT throw away visual quality at all. if your image host doesn't support it, i'd recommend imagebam as they do support PNG, as well others.

on a side note, another bonus of using the PNG format is that PNG supports full 32bit alpha transparency in images, unlike JPEG. (in other words, one can have transparent areas in one's images).

[sackett]

What is the size difference between saving to png vs jpg? If png is so great, why is jpg the standard??

[echoes]

What is the size difference between saving to png vs jpg? If png is so great, why is jpg the standard??

there is no set ratio in file size difference between jpeg or any other format cuz it depends on each individual image. you can expect though, that since png is lossless, it will have moderate to much higher file sizes than jpeg. the concern over this has passed in the 5 years or so though due to the massive advances in hard disk drive technology. (i have a 320 GB HDD now &amp am getting a 1 TB HDD as soon as i can).

as to the second question...
why is mp3 still the most popular audio codec? cuz people are slow to change, mp3 is almost monopolized in the industry cuz it is a proprietary-royalty codec, and a lot of audio software is still "mp3-centric". mp3 is a shitty, and i mean a shitty codec compared to others out there; its ancient now. (same goes for jpeg). ogg vorbis, (a free audio codec alternative) is much better as far as lossy audio codecs are concerned. ogg can achieve higher audio quality than mp3 with lower bitrates! (which equates to smaller file sizes. although ogg can also go up to 512 kbps as where mp3 can only go up to 320 kbps). ogg vorbis is also royalty free (Free Open Source Software). aac is another much better audio format, although it is not royalty-free or FOSS.

i use FLAC for all my audio. it is a FOS lossless audio codec.

this audio analogy applies though to the image situation too because it is another example (albeit in different media) of lossy data compression vs lossless data compression.

[Gazo]

Its all foreign to me echoes..............

I prefer jpeg for 2 reasons..............png maybe loseless as you say but the last fake I made I saved in both png and jpeg.........same pic but the png pic was 4mb while the jpeg was 1.1mb.........to me jpeg is easier to store as it takes up less space.

and also if I posted the png I would have to use another host to post it here....and somewhere down the line that host could end up on the banned list..

[echoes]

@ kellsbelles
its your prerogative whether or not you want to move to the 21st century. its also your prerogative whether or not you want to download a fake. no one has ever held a gun to someones head and demand they download a fake.

[Jackson]

I have seen echoes say this a lot. He is correct, png is a better format - hands down. It's biggest benefit is downstream editing. After so many edits the loss factor in jpg becomes apparent. Kinda like the old VHS tapes, with each sequential copy the sharpness diminshes.

But to answer Sackett's question, jpeg is the standard for a simple reasons. It was the first widely accepted format, and all platforms support it. This is not true in the case of png. Many programming languages have yet to adopt png and some still have no plans to incorporate it. The other consideration is of course, size. While many of us are high speed, you have to look at the delivery side. For a web server, size matters in terms of bandwidth consumed and bandwidth is still one of the biggest factors in a cost of a web site. If your average file delivery size is 3 to 4 times higher, that is 3 to 4 times less people that can parallel download. Less masses equals less exposure and less bottom line. Therefore high volume web servers are highly motivated to keep jpg a standard if only for simple economic reasons.

Same story for the mp3 you were discussing. Being a standard does not make it the best, however entire industries have cropped up in support of mp3 such as players, and porting technologies. Hard to get these guys with a vested interest in a technology to change. Just look at how long it has taken to drive flash memory to high-volume mainstream uses. The technology has been widely available for 10 years and the vast majority of the world is still spinning hard drive platters.

But in terms of industry wide compatibility there are legitimate reasons for sticking to standards.

[echoes]

yeah, those were the points i was trying to make. as much as it sucks, everything jackson said is correct.

[Newton]

I too agree with Jackson...basically on the principles.

Take the charity "United Way." It is not even the closest as being one of the best charitable organizations out there, but because of lobbyist and marketing, almost all big businesses give all of their charitable contributions to them. (And what does United Way do, but build extravagant office complexes and pay their own ceo's and employess an extravagant fee to run the company. Geeez.

[echoes]

i'd like to give new fakirs a tip: most competent fakirs tend to use bodyshots without site tags/signatures/logos/icons. of course, there are other obvious methods around that...

[Flixated]

Thanks for the heads up to this thread on my last post. I'm new to the forum, new to fakes but, not so new to PS. I've been hesitant in the past to make fakes as I've been one of those extremely annoyed at the idiots knowingly trying to pass off a fake as the real thing. I didnt want to add to that, even though mine would have little impact considering the volume out there. I have nothing against fakes as long as they are labelled as such. It takes more skill than the average viewer may think or even care to know. I'll try to make more as I find the time and decent candidates. I havent browsed a lot here yet but, some I've seen actualy should be taken as quite a compliment to some of the celebs. A Jill Hennessey job I saw last night was spot-on perfection and a great example all should strive for. I'll enjoy browsing for more of these.

As for the PNG vs JPEG debate, I'm one that will be more concerened about file size and compatibility over absolute data loss quality.

[echoes]

As for the PNG vs JPEG debate, I'm one that will be more concerened about file size and compatibility over absolute data loss quality.

i can respect that. its free choice. however, a clarification: "data loss" is the same thing as loss of visual quality.

[sackett]

Thanks for the heads up to this thread on my last post. I'm new to the forum, new to fakes but, not so new to PS. I've been hesitant in the past to make fakes as I've been one of those extremely annoyed at the idiots knowingly trying to pass off a fake as the real thing. I didnt want to add to that, even though mine would have little impact considering the volume out there.

That is why I always urge new fakers (or fakirs) to make a unique logo or sign their name to their fakes, as well as label the celebs name onto it. It's just another clue that says "hey, this is created...this is a parody...this is NOT reality." I especially urge it in cases where a faker is creating a nipple-slip or an upskirt or any other candid-type fake.