Macklemore and chinchilla fox coat

[furotic]

Cool gifs I found from tumblr.

 

[image]http://25.media.tumblr.com/9d3d06da829fdad5ff57425be71743e2/tumblr_mir9u91unC1r9ujffo1_500.gif[/image]

[image]http://24.media.tumblr.com/ca0a0e9288eee0455fa9f38a4cd1fa15/tumblr_mibfo0GXs01s2ape8o1_500.gif[/image]

 

Love the video too.

 

Also this. MY GOD!! That collar?!

[image]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbl1usqMim1r2dttro1_1280.jpg[/image]

[image]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbl1vvIXSZ1r2dttro1_1280.jpg[/image]

[samurman]

I agree, the silver fox collar looks absolutely massive and magnificent, but on close inspection, the photos are photoshopped collages. In other words, they are "fake". Here are the clues to that effect:

 

1. In the first photo, look at the cuffs of the right sleeve. The chinchilla fur of the sleeve is quite sharp, just like the hand of the model, but the transition is blurred. The blurring is most apparent when you are looking at the portion of the cuff overlapping the silver fox collar. This is a sign that the bottom half of the silver fox collar was cropped and pasted over the chinchilla image.

2. In the first photo, there is a discrepancy between the angle at which the model is standing and the angle at which the the silver fox collar wraps her face. There is no way the collar could be positioned around her head in this way.

3. In the first photo, if you look to the right, where her blond hair is behind the left side of the silver fox collar, the silver fox fur tips over the blond hair are blurred and not sharp. But the sharpness of the collar allows us to identify individual guard hairs easily. What this shows is that while the collar was being cut from the original image, some dark background slipped in, as you cannot possibly select the collar pixel-perfect, and that background hangs like a shadow over her blond hair. The same fuzziness can be seen on a much larger scale in the second photo around the top edge of the right side of the collar. The edge of the collar in the original image draws lots of zigzags as individual guard hairs peek out and cutting the collar is a lot of work. Photoshop has some tools to give you some degree of fuzzy selection but it is not perfect and this shows here.

4. In the first photo, if you look at the edges of the right side of the silver fox collar, you will see a patch of long, black fur. This is a leftover of the original image from which the collar was cut. A similar patch of black fur is seen in the second photo as well, at the edge of the left side of the collar, extending all the way down. If this was a true image of a chinchilla jacket with silver fox collar, we would not see this, because it decreases the contrast between silver fox and chinchilla. These black furs are black dyed fox fur, found in the original coat.

 

Hence, the silver fox collar belongs to a black dyed fox coat and it was cut and pasted on top of the photo of a blond model wearing a chinchilla jacket.

[furotic]

Damnit! I shoulda known. It's a very good photoshop though. oh well still pleasing to the eye even if it's fake.

[Foxb]

I'm not so convinced it is Photoshopped - particularly because of the second photograph, where the girl's hand is resting against the bottom of the collar. Unless the hand has been Photoshopped in along with the collar, I don't think that changing the fur direction to let it lie under the hand would be feasible. I've done a lot of Photoshop work and I know this isn't the solution I would have chosen, and I've had to do some pretty annoying things (such as Photoshopping a dress so that it covered a model's bum!). There are some very fine hairs visible over the hand and that would be difficult to achieve too. You acknowedge this yourself in point 3. Any fuzzy areas I think could be blamed on lighting, since other guard hairs are defined so very sharply.

Also, there is the fact that the model's hair has is overhanging the fox collar with fine detail in the second photo. The hair is definitely in a position to be lying over a big collar, unless the warp tool has been used, which would have reduced the definition of the girl's hairs and distortion would have been very difficult to control. Even in the first photograph, particularly the very ends of her hair are in a position to suggest they are lying over a big collar - if they were not, they would have to have been cut away from the chinchilla coat they were lying on and moved; the detail is very fine so I can't see this being a possibility.

 

As for the black area of fur, is it not just the black underbelly of the silver fox? Why would someone spend so much time cutting around individual guard hairs... while leaving the black coat body still there? We can see here that this animal often has dark fur on its underside: http://25.media.tumblr.com/076bddf243d2987ecb3ea2e61701181a/tumblr_mfytakM2JF1qavrxlo1_1280.jpg and http://www.alaskafurexchange.com/images/inventory/furs/silverfox.jpg

Such a big collar, without patching in fur from another skin, would probably require these underbelly areas to be utilised a little. I think that the area near the hand in the second picture shows the silver fur gradiating to black fur rather well.

 

As for the way the collar wraps around the model's head - I think she just has her head turned! There is an area of unusual shading in the cuff of the first photograph but I think that this is down to lighting and Photoshop retouching, not drastic changes, than anything else. If you look further up this same sleeve there is some fuzzy definition between the sleeve and the body of the coat.

 

In general, if the fox fur has been pasted in, its hairs have been done in very, very sharp detail against the background.

 

Mainly though, I believe that unless you're a photorealistic painter, it would be almost impossible to achieve changing the fur direction under the hand. And if you're a photorealistic painter, you would have painted the whole thing anyway! This leads me to my next point: why on earth would someone have decided to spend so much time Photoshopping these images? My reasoning for this claim? I can paint photorealistically in digital media: http://fav.me/d114wl2 and I would definitely still balk at the cut and paste procedure being suggested.

[White Fox]

I tend to agree with FoxB, although I've not had time yet to read the reasons above. I would just tend to wonder WHY they would photoshop it. When they would have other coats available that they could just photograph. Photoshopping to the quality of that one takes a LOT of time. Why risk paying hundreds of dollars to photoshop a photo when they probably have coats that would produce as stunning a photo for the price of a simple snap shot. But again, I've not yet read the reasoning above and I do put a lot of faith in Samurman's judgment.

 

Basically though what I was going to say was this. Why photoshop it when I would have volunteered to wear the jacket and be photographed for free!!!!! Ha ha

 

W