Digital Artist Gets Super Creative with Self-Portrait Series, Shows You How It’s Done


Are you sick of the standard arm’s-length selfie? Or even the remote-triggered self-portrait? Well, photographer and talented Photoshop artist Martín De Pasquale was, so he turned his self-portraits up to eleven and created some reality-bending images that make that make those bathroom mirror selfies look even dumber.

The above video takes a BTS look at the process that goes into creating these compositions, and as straightforward as it looks at times throughout the demonstration, the amount of Photoshop skill De Pasquale has acquired over years of practice plays a major role in how effortless he makes this look.

Below is a collection of the Argentinian digital artist’s latest works. If you’d like to keep up with him and his conceptual endeavors, you can do so by heading over to his Behance profile:















(via Picture Correct)

Image credits: Photographs by Martín De Pasquale and used in accordance with Creative Commons license.

  • slyman

    pretty sure you guys posted about this a couple weeks ago

  • Omar Salgado

    I actually like his work, but I would not consider photography the final output .

  • Vin Weathermon

    Considering there is no way you would ever that that in one photograph, what is the relevance of that statement? He took the photographs, he manipulated the photographs in a way that at least appears to be photographic for the most part.

  • Omar Salgado

    The relevance is on the ontology of the photographs themselves. Of course, the epistemology of them is just as important.

    I know he took the photographs, but photography ends where he begins to alter informatically the forms and elements contained within the photo. No, it’s not the so called argument that we all, in the digital era and the chemical one too, modify a pic in a degree -WB, saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc.-.

    Photo manipulation is not new, lying and making illusions is not new -photography itself is an illusion-, I know that, but that is not the point. The point is if we consider this photography, then everything can be, even “roaming” inside a videogame and “photographing” “scenes” (screen capturing). Do you catch my idea?

    I’m not against Photoshop nor works made entirely or in part with a computer; it’s just that I do not consider them photography, not even if they “at least appear to be photographic of the most part.”

    Maybe then we should pose the question this way: what makes a picture to be considered a photograph nowadays?

  • Joel Penner

    The most annoying thing about the snobbish photographers today is that they lose sight of art for the elitism of purity in photography, completely forgetting that the greats in photography also did their own editing in the dark room.

    Do we invalidate painting because someone uses acrylics instead of oils? Actually, why do we even validate oil paintings when the true beginnings started with dry paste on cave walls?

  • Vin Weathermon

    Omar, thanks for that very intellectual-sounding paragraph, that sounds as relevant as going to your oncologist for an episiotomy. If you are saying photography is light hitting an organic medium, processed and then exposed to be viewed on a paper substrate without any manipulation with filters, paper selection, dodge/burning then damn near nobody is a photographer these days. And “informatically speaking” digital images are just data. Data that does not expire like film, can be replicated identically and cannot be viewed on anything other than a monitor. If you are talking about “RAW” from the camera to your screen, then the data has been seriously changed from conversion to viewing. If you adjusted one single thing, that data has changed dramatically. can ask what a photograph is….but then I think everyone knows well enough.

  • pr0digy

    Point taken. But these are heavily manipulated compositions. They are digital paintings, even though most of the samples are derived from photographs. They are not photographs.

  • Vin Weathermon

    I’ve heard for 30 years how photographs are “paintings” through the lens and mind of the photographer. I’ve listened to expert retouchers describe their methods for negative retouching (again been doing this a long time) and painting in things that weren’t there on the negative, then printing, then print retouching. I’ve also worked with pros who did magazine work, and masking was done old school to get product in with people. I don’t know…I think trying to be purist now is an intellectual exercise nobody can really win. I sure as hell won’t leave a spot of garbage on an image when I could clone some of that bush to get rid of it. Why is this guy’s artistic planning and execution called out as “non-photographic?” I came from film….and I still see this as a photographic collage done by an artist…let it be a photograph.

  • boomer

    you’re just too technical aren’t you? :D

  • Omar Salgado

    …”completely forgetting that the greats in photography also did their own editing in the dark room.”

    C’mon, did you read what I wrote? Give it a chance, maybe you would find that I said that the chemical photography had also its level of manipulation.

  • Omar Salgado

    I’m no purist. I like retouched and heavily manipulated “photographs” for what they convey. I’m not against Photoshop, like in this Martin’s case. I’m not even an intellectual -it’s not my fault if some words are not in your “intellectual” vocabulary-.

    Can not I question what makes a photograph? Can not I question how a different level of manipulation affects not the image, but how we conceive it after in its production and distribution?

    It is not the data or its manipulation in the PC; it is not the film or its manipulation in the darkroom. Digital photography has another ontological structure, that of the pixels, but the case is not the pixels themselves, but the entrance to another way to conceive photography in its production and distribution through those “picture elements”. That’s what I refer to when I say that heavily manipulated photos in Photoshop are no longer photography due to the fact of the arrangement of single data values that no longer correspond to what they were in the first instance. That’s an infography. And I point at it because if we can be easily deluded by any kind of photograph (chemical or digital, and no photo is mimetic to reality, underline this), we cannot detect the deception when it is made out of 1s o 0s. In this Martin’s case, of course we can, it’s obvious. But… what about retouching a portrait that makes someone look like a mannequin, lifeless? Is that acceptable? Is that a “standard”? I know, I know, in the film era there were those “tricks” too. But now, we take the tricks for what must be. Get it?

  • Omar Salgado

    I don’t know. I like to know and learn everything around photography because it’s my passion. I guess that doesn’t make me a “snob”, otherwise, I would consider myself a mediocre (and I am in some respects). I know many photographers not only knew about photography, but arts, social matters, politics, economics, human relationships, science, entertainment, etc.; some were painters, other were economists, writers, etc.

  • Vin Weathermon

    For a non-Purist, you certainly keep circling back to the notion of “original”. I would hope at some point we can think about it as “good art” instead of the philosophical. Manipulation done badly looks like crap. Much of this photographer’s work is very artistic.

  • Celina Perry

    These are very creative works. The one with the apple is quite interesting.

  • Mikko Löppönen

    So? Real photography is as just manipulation as anything.

  • Omar Salgado

    I agree with that: manipulation done badly does look like garbage; Martin’s work is artistic. As I said, I really like his photos.

    But, my final words will tell this: photography nowadays is just a starting point to creating something very different from the “original”. Well, it’s not the original I argue over, but how we perceive, recognise and treat something that is much of a mix. In the end, we too are heavily manipulated by current imagery, which is worse since we let it pass with no critical effort.

    To each his own.

  • lianafoditioyf

    my best friend’s
    mother-in-law makes $79 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from
    work for eight months but last month her payment was $14881 just working on
    the computer for a few hours. look at here WWW.WORK­s­77.ℂ­OM

  • AgiHusseinofy

    Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
    on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­