Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Timjames

Subcision: Thai Website's Photo (Too Good To Be True?)

Aren't those considered boxcar and icepick scars? I thought subcision was mainly effective on only rolling scars?

Edited by betterliving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, the lighting is at two different angles. The first is almost directly from above with a diffused source that's somewhat far away. The second is more at a 45-degree angle with the same diffused source.

There very well may have been some improvement, but it seems to have been exaggerated by the lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't those considered boxcar and icepick scars? I thought subcision was mainly effective on only rolling scars?

This. Other than maybe 3 of those scars subcsion would not be of much help. I think it is photoshopped, even if subcision would work for all the scarring subcision does not magically remove pores and uneven texture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like makeup or lighting is different in the two photos. You can still see the scars in the second photo if you look closely but the redness has been covered up and it looks like some sort of foundation has been caked on to cover up the scars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not submission results. Like someone else said, all but three are it amenable to subcision, and I'm not even sure aout Those three, bc they may be box scars.

It actually looks like they have lotion on and it's reflecting the light better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the standpoint of a graphic designer, if that is a Photoshop job... it is a darn good one. Zoom in and you will see there are no pixel flaws, so if they Photoshopped it, they basically did it to perfection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's Photoshop, I think it was simply shot with lighting at a different angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the standpoint of a graphic designer, if that is a Photoshop job... it is a darn good one. Zoom in and you will see there are no pixel flaws, so if they Photoshopped it, they basically did it to perfection.

I think you need to examine the "before" picture, not the "after". Look at the angle of the largest the scars to his cheekbone with lighting in mind. Also, keep in mind, you're looking at 72 dpi at low resolution. You're not seeing clear pixels here. I personally think the "before" photo is photoshopped and the "after" photo is legit.

Edited by TokyoGirl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming from the standpoint of a graphic designer, if that is a Photoshop job... it is a darn good one. Zoom in and you will see there are no pixel flaws, so if they Photoshopped it, they basically did it to perfection.

I think you need to examine the "before" picture, not the "after". Look at the angle of the largest the scars to his cheekbone with lighting in mind. Also, keep in mind, you're looking at 72 dpi at low resolution. You're not seeing clear pixels here. I personally think the "before" photo is photoshopped and the "after" photo is legit.

I looked at it all, I think it just comes down to angle and light source. I don't think it's Photoshopped and if it is, it's a very good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×