The Effects of Photoshop on Society - Page 3 - the Fashion Spot
 
How to Join
24-06-2010
  31
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
The first set of images you posted is an example where the first image - to me - is much better than the second.

I have some experience exploring fashion photography archives and I can safely say that the amount of effective retouching done today is vastly greater. However, as you point out, the time spent on retouching was probably greater then. That is, quite likely, the source of the problem.

A lot of this would probably be fixed by just not using cameras that produce high resolution images. The more resolution, the greater the demand on the photographer/retoucher/make-up artist.


Last edited by iluvjeisa; 24-06-2010 at 03:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
24-06-2010
  32
don't look down
 
tigerrouge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Béal Feirste
Gender: femme
Posts: 14,473
Not only was retouching a more demanding practice, those retouched images ended up in a tightly-controlled number of places. People were sold dreams, but they weren't saturated in the non-stop media environment we have now.

I forgot to add in my post above - while tabloids have always been on the sniff for scandal, a thriving industry has sprung up to exploit the difference between the appearance of people as we see them in magazines and as we see them in the street. How many weekly gossip magazines scream on their covers - "celebrities without make-up", "has she taken plastic surgery too far" and so on. I wish I could remember better headlines but I try not to read them, because it's an endless parade of punishment and gloating that doesn't make anyone feel good for very long.

There will always be some disparity between a PR shot of an actress and how she looks in real life, and people do like to see those images - but we wouldn't have the fodder to fill countless magazines and websites with 'comparison shots' on a daily basis, if the practice of unrealistic photoshopping wasn't endemic.

__________________
You're perfect, yes, it's true. But without me, you're only you.
  Reply With Quote
24-06-2010
  33
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
^Again, the high resolution of the photographs today is probably to blame. And then adding some reverse retouching, of course, adds an extra something. Just some sharpening and adding of red hue to some areas will do it. And I don't think people still realize how simple this process is...

  Reply With Quote
24-06-2010
  34
front row
 
FashionFollower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver
Gender: homme
Posts: 387
An interesting article.

  Reply With Quote
24-06-2010
  35
front row
 
JustABoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York
Gender: homme
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknownpleasures View Post
Professional retouchers do not only make the people in the photos look better,but the photo in general.And I like how they remove the flaws that come with emaciation,I don't think seeing boney girls in magazine covers and ads is a good idea,they are thin but there's no need to see them as anorexic and tired and wrinkled and fragile looking as they could be .
It's not how thin they could be, it's how thin they are. The extent to which photoshop has shifted the discussion on body image from a matter of real people, their bodies, and the effects of illness on their bodies to a debate about the use of technology is one of the worst effects of retouching in my opinion.

I don't get how anyone could say that they'd prefer to see their girls' emaciated figures manipulated--wouldn't the best thing for everyone be if the girls weren't emaciated in the first place? What's more, if we're embracing retouching, couldn't the same look be achieved with a healthier model who was then retouched? Add masking the side effects of illness-and allowing consumers to willfully ignore those side effects--to the list of things horribly wrong with the use of photoshop in fashion today.

  Reply With Quote
25-06-2010
  36
fashion insider
 
Unknownpleasures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Gender: homme
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustABoy View Post
It's not how thin they could be, it's how thin they are. The extent to which photoshop has shifted the discussion on body image from a matter of real people, their bodies, and the effects of illness on their bodies to a debate about the use of technology is one of the worst effects of retouching in my opinion.

I don't get how anyone could say that they'd prefer to see their girls' emaciated figures manipulated--wouldn't the best thing for everyone be if the girls weren't emaciated in the first place? What's more, if we're embracing retouching, couldn't the same look be achieved with a healthier model who was then retouched? Add masking the side effects of illness-and allowing consumers to willfully ignore those side effects--to the list of things horribly wrong with the use of photoshop in fashion today.
Well...yes!It would be better not to have an extremely thin girl selling something, but that is something that is really not up to this photoshop thing and is merely the conception of the body (and how it sells) in the fashion industry.
Yeah,it would be much better if girls weren't emaciated in first place,but that's as just said how the fashion industry wants them to be...they need them thinner than average girls for their reasons and that's why we haven't had much thicker girls in like 10 years.Some years ago back in the supermodel era the girls were healthy looking and gorgeous as models have never been before ,girls like Christy,like Evangelina,like Naomi were never toothpicks and they walked important shows and had covers in big magazines,beauty campaigns etc,but that was back then and for whatever reason that changed and now we have thin girls like Freja,like Chanel Iman,like Anja etc and they mostly do high fashion,I know I'm lagging but my point is that the way how the designers want their models to be has influenced how they should look on print

Did you read this ?
I think you should read it to get my point.

Then If the way they show the girls makes the girls out there want to be extremely thin and promotes anorexia ,then we should ask ourselves if it's the retoucher or the retoucher's client fault.

  Reply With Quote
25-06-2010
  37
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
Though the topics of retouching and weight are intertwined, the focus of this thread is Photoshop and retouching. So for the question of how thin the models should be, please refer to the weight thread.

  Reply With Quote
25-06-2010
  38
front row
 
ErnstLudwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Metropolis
Gender: homme
Posts: 210
with PS / AAE around... even Stalin could attend events

  Reply With Quote
27-06-2010
  39
tfs star
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,534
Thanks to the baby boomers and ever cheaper retouching of both still and moving pictures, Madonna will be doing campaigns in her 60s and beyond.
(*expletive deleted*) baby boomers!

  Reply With Quote
27-06-2010
  40
doldrums
 
silk skin paws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,358
For a person like myself, I can look at ad campaigns and other images and know that they're not real and were probably retouched to remove just about every 'imperfection' and 'flaws' from faces and bodies. But for someone who is younger or unaware of the heavy editing an image undergoes may feed into the impossible images. I don't find anything wrong with digital edited images some people actually forget that the model or actress they see might not look like this is real life. And then there's some retouchers who become overzealous and remove everything that makes a person a real person. From my viewpoint it's just another way to uphold an impossible standard I'm probably rambling.

  Reply With Quote
28-06-2010
  41
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
^I know some very intelligent but extremely focused people who simply are so goal oriented that they don't pay much attention to things like magazines and how they are done. They just read them, unthinkingly really, and then apply their brains on what they consider important enough to warrant that effort. So a lot of very smart people are surprisingly oblivious to these techniques - rather fascinating, really.

So it's definitely not just teenagers who will be affected directly...it's anyone who doesn't work in the business and has no special interest in photography.

  Reply With Quote
28-06-2010
  42
don't look down
 
tigerrouge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Béal Feirste
Gender: femme
Posts: 14,473
And I think that no matter how much your mind is consciously aware that photoshopping happens, your brain processes these images on a different level, where it doesn't make such allowances. The amount of split-second assessments we're evolved to make about visual stimuli isn't going to be erased by reading an article about Pascal Dangin and understanding what it says. No-one is the master of their own brain in such a way that they aren't influenced by what they see around them on a more literal level. Even when you think you're staring into space or half-asleep, your brain is still making a million micro-judgements about what's going on around you. The conscious mind is not the full story about how you perceive and process things.

__________________
You're perfect, yes, it's true. But without me, you're only you.
  Reply With Quote
28-06-2010
  43
clever ain't wise
 
iluvjeisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 13,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerrouge View Post
And I think that no matter how much your mind is consciously aware that photoshopping happens, your brain processes these images on a different level, where it doesn't make such allowances. The amount of split-second assessments we're evolved to make about visual stimuli isn't going to be erased by reading an article about Pascal Dangin and understanding what it says. No-one is the master of their own brain in such a way that they aren't influenced by what they see around them on a more literal level. Even when you think you're staring into space or half-asleep, your brain is still making a million micro-judgements about what's going on around you. The conscious mind is not the full story about how you perceive and process things.
I agree that reading an article will get you nowhere when it comes to this.

If you spend a significant amount of time looking at photographs of human beings I think you learn what is physically possible and what is not. I'm pretty sure you will use that ability when parsing image input. Some people have an ability to see things more how they are - like some people are better at drawing an object before them in a realistic fashion - that tells you something about their image processing.

  Reply With Quote
30-06-2010
  44
scenester
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Netherlands
Gender: homme
Posts: 94
#30 That Amy Dressel retouching is actually pretty lame. Look at the jukebox girl that looks is she's going to tumble over after retouching, because her left leg has been deleted. The retouching that has been done on the pie girls is allso less than adequate.


Last edited by embrace; 30-06-2010 at 09:17 AM. Reason: completeness
  Reply With Quote
02-07-2010
  45
V.I.P.
 
agee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Gender: femme
Posts: 6,245
One question I have for someone who works in this particular part of the fashion industry, is has the cost of retouching become cheaper than the cost of studio time - specifically paying for the space / venue, the photographer, model(s), hair and makeup artists, lighting technicians, assistants, et. al.? And if so, are designers and editors starting to rely on mistakes being fixed and refinements being made during post production? Even with photo editing I have seen some eds and campaigns done by top photographers and models where it seems like they were three or four takes away from getting a good shot and I wonder if the feedback loop of the photographer or art director reviewing the contact sheet or computer screen and going back in to make the photos better has been truncated.

An example, and of course what is good or bad is a matter of taste, there have been numerous comments about the photoshopped smiles in the latest D&G ads - to be honest with you, I am not good at spotting that kind of stuff, but something like that makes me wonder if someone decided after the photo shoot that a certain vibe was what they wanted and there were not enough pictures where all the models were reflecting that vibe and they had to go in and make it happen post-production. It just seems like to me, especially with multi-model photos, that there is often something second or third rate about the photos and it is always something fixable like the bodies aren't positioned right or the accessories are too prominent or not prominent enough and these are things that should have been easily detected on a contact sheet or computer screen and then fixed but if they are now shooting in one day what they used to shoot in two or three, then perhaps there is not enough time for that to happen.

Just wondering...


Last edited by agee; 02-07-2010 at 05:48 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
effects, photoshop, society
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. ©2018 All rights reserved.