After reading a multitude of posts about editing and the ethical/moral/integral implications *cough, cough* I thought I'd re-share this little gem that someone posted here last summer (sorry, can't remember who gets credit).
Check what most of those magazine pictures really look like (before they've been edited)
My point? ah hell, I don't really have one. I just love Photoshop and I think this is really cool.
After reading a multitude of posts about editing and the ethical/moral/integral implications *cough, cough* I thought I'd re-share this little gem that someone posted here last summer (sorry, can't remember who gets credit).
Check what most of those magazine pictures really look like (before they've been edited)
My point? ah hell, I don't really have one. I just love Photoshop and I think this is really cool.
I'm pretty sure that every ad in a magazine is retouched in some way. Why pay a photographer a huge sum of money an hour to take a picture of the perfect model when they can get someone to do a little PSing on a ok model that doesn't require 1000's of dollars an hour.
If you know any magazine photographers or Graphic Designers you'd know that ALL magazine human subject photos go through some wicked post processing. For instance, every pore is tightened and skin tones are completely evened, natural? No way. It's a blast to learn how to do, but it needs to be common knowledge: so that young girls and women KNOW that not only are magazine standards hard to obtain, but IMPOSSIBLE, since they didn't exist to begin with...rather...they were fabricated in cyber space.
P.S. and if you've ever taken model shots with a digi cam, you know they pic up more on the screen than what you could see with your naked eye, meaning, even MORE processing is required. I learned that this weekend.
To me, this is very disturbing. We are becoming, or have already become, people concerned with plastic and superficial notions of nature and ourselves. Along with this comes eugenics, genetic engineering, designer bodies and a master race. We learn to hate our true natures and desire what we can't really have or be. The advertising executives will be setting the standards and will be helping to introduce products that will most likely not only be dangerous, but forever change nature. I don't want this!
Nor do I find anything attractive or sexy in those perfect looking models after PS.
That's pretty wild. Now I konw what to expect, I just dedicated myself for a bacholores in visual communications the other day. I had been undecided for the past 2 quarter, but this feild is very interesting.
Hi
i just saw the link again, and saw couple of snaps like //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html or say //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/index.html any many others , i find it difficult to belive that photographer did so much of retouch and specially models with skin like one in the bikni was chosen, i mean it doesnt make sense also if one watches orginal snap had lot of shadows undeneath eyes which i find it difficult to believe that a professional photographer will not notice and do needful like say introduce a reflector, i feel in order to prove the point of range of retouching can be done that he has gone for over kill to prove his point , i find it difficult to believe that for a glamour photography some one would choose a model with skin as bad as one we get to see in the close up
Hi
i just saw the link again, and saw couple of snaps like //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html or say //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/index.html any many others , i find it difficult to belive that photographer did so much of retouch and specially models with skin like one in the bikni was chosen, i mean it doesnt make sense also if one watches orginal snap had lot of shadows undeneath eyes which i find it difficult to believe that a professional photographer will not notice and do needful like say introduce a reflector, i feel in order to prove the point of range of retouching can be done that he has gone for over kill to prove his point , i find it difficult to believe that for a glamour photography some one would choose a model with skin as bad as one we get to see in the close up
On both those, he makes the point that he largely agrees with what you are saying, but was paid to do the work.
I figure if the photographer screws up, its probably cheaper to fix it later rather than reshoot, and pay all the staff/ studio costs again.
Hi
i just saw the link again, and saw couple of snaps like //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html or say //homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/blonde/index.html any many others , i find it difficult to belive that photographer did so much of retouch and specially models with skin like one in the bikni was chosen, i mean it doesnt make sense also if one watches orginal snap had lot of shadows undeneath eyes which i find it difficult to believe that a professional photographer will not notice and do needful like say introduce a reflector, i feel in order to prove the point of range of retouching can be done that he has gone for over kill to prove his point , i find it difficult to believe that for a glamour photography some one would choose a model with skin as bad as one we get to see in the close up
On both those, he makes the point that he largely agrees with what you are saying, but was paid to do the work.
I figure if the photographer screws up, its probably cheaper to fix it later rather than reshoot, and pay all the staff/ studio costs again.
If the photographer screws up, it's typically the photographer's responsibility for the reshoot. That means he and his staff don't get paid twice, nor should they. If the AD changes his mind after the shoot, then it's a whole different story.
yeah.. i think that that site was really interesting to see how much actually IS done.
And it explains quite a bit why people are trying to change the way they look. women are convinced that they should look airbrushed if they want to look beautiful. It frustrates me so much when people think they need to change the way they look to look good.....
To me, this is very disturbing. We are becoming, or have already become, people concerned with plastic and superficial notions of nature and ourselves. Along with this comes eugenics, genetic engineering, designer bodies and a master race. We learn to hate our true natures and desire what we can't really have or be. The advertising executives will be setting the standards and will be helping to introduce products that will most likely not only be dangerous, but forever change nature. I don't want this!
Nor do I find anything attractive or sexy in those perfect looking models after PS.
It's this mentallity that allowed us to come as far as we have. Humans as a species are always striving for bigger and better. ;D
I also retouch all most all of my photos the same way. Like these (for those who haven't seen them):
...and it's not much different than what painters have been doing for centuries. It's just new technology!
I don't think the art of retouching or 'changing' is the problem.
making a beautiful picture into something more beautiful doesn't realy cause any problems... and even changing a picture of a woman into something else isn't so serious.. HOWEVER.. .how we respond to it IS. and i am not sure people are capable of not desiring to look like someon who just stepped out of the photoshop salon (how do you think photoshop will like THAT use of their name??.. ref: this thread anyhow.. i agree very much with Olyuzi. We are desiring to look like something we can't and shouldn't and many people are unsatisfied with what they have just because they compare themselves to something that is NOT human....
I have no problems when photo editing is done for artistic and expressive content, but it's another matter entirely when advertisers are setting the standards for beauty and truth (or, the lack thereof).
And that's what suffers most with this...truth goes by the wayside and there is a kind of magical thinking that not only can anything be done in PS or with images, but in life in general. It works to desensitize and dehumanize. Artistically...well, this is not art. It's technique, but not art. A person who practices it is an artisan, but not an artist, if not used for expressive purposes.
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
To me, this is very disturbing. We are becoming, or have already become, people concerned with plastic and superficial notions of nature and ourselves. Along with this comes eugenics, genetic engineering, designer bodies and a master race. We learn to hate our true natures and desire what we can't really have or be. The advertising executives will be setting the standards and will be helping to introduce products that will most likely not only be dangerous, but forever change nature. I don't want this!
Nor do I find anything attractive or sexy in those perfect looking models after PS.
It's this mentallity that allowed us to come as far as we have. Humans as a species are always striving for bigger and better. ;D
I also retouch all most all of my photos the same way. Like these (for those who haven't seen them):
...and it's not much different than what painters have been doing for centuries. It's just new technology!
