The Effects of Photoshop on Society

[SoBlonde]

I feel like someone who has such a high position in the field would be able to say, "You know there's 3 limbs there?" or "She looks fake."

 

[iluvjeisa]

I feel like someone who has such a high position in the field would be able to say, "You know there's 3 limbs there?" or "She looks fake."

Yes, indeed. It's hard to remove responsibility from retouchers when they actually produce ads where women have three legs.

 

[tigerrouge]

Perhaps they develop a sort of myopia where being trained to focus on tiny details leads them to literally fail to see the big picture.

 

[Jared]

Whoever has the 'creative' input into how the final image should look, holds a lot of responsibility. It would be impossible to totally eradicate the level of retouching that is done, but they should try and find a happy medium where the essence of the original shot is retained and it portrays a more 'realistic' image.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Whoever has the 'creative' input into how the final image should look, holds a lot of responsibility. It would be impossible to totally eradicate the level of retouching that is done, but they should try and find a happy medium where the essence of the original shot is retained and it portrays a more 'realistic' image.

Well, one simple thing would be to save intermediate copies from the retouching process...

 

[octopi]

i don't think it would hurt to put the word "retouched" (or variations thereof) to images that have been so. i know some people argue that it doesn't make a difference, because everyone knows that they're all retouched anyway, but speaking for myself--someone who has grown up loving fashion and reading fashion magazines and known pretty much from the start that all the pictures of beautiful models and celebrities are photoshopped to death--sometimes that knowledge just doesn't make it to the forefront of my brain when i'm looking at a gorgeous photo of the latest fashion darling. It's like, you know it but at the same time, you don't, or you forget. I hope this makes a bit of sense....it still happens to me all the time and even though I remind myself as I'm looking through magazines/online photos that "it's all fake, they're all retouched to look perfect" a lot of times I still feel the blows of low self-esteem, despite my knowledge of the work that was put into making the images look as perfect as they seem.

anyway just my opinion. maybe it wouldn't hurt.

 

[sethii]

Wouldn't it be more damaging to self esteem if people saw images of someone like Lara Stone or Miranda Kerr with 'Unretouched' tagged on at the bottom of the page?

newstoob.com

 

[TheVeed]

Well, one simple thing would be to save intermediate copies from the retouching process...

I don't think you quite 'get' the process of retouching... of course there are intermediate copies saved...

Sethii: If you were to see high-res photos of Miranda Kerr, she's human, she has pock marks, scars, little deposits of fat like any normal person. She's not this airbrushed creature of perfection. She has a body that 99% of the world cannot get, but she's still human.

Compare that to the overretouching in today's publications, and there's a huge difference.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I don't think you quite 'get' the process of retouching... of course there are intermediate copies saved...

Either that or I could be applying the concept of irony to the conversation. Any point before Anja became three-legged would have been preferable, really, pox-marks or not.

Some of those ads that have come out from the likes of Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger would have been better with 10% of the retouching that was in fact done.

 

[blueorchid]

Wouldn't it be more damaging to self esteem if people saw images of someone like Lara Stone or Miranda Kerr with 'Unretouched' tagged on at the bottom of the page?

No, I don't think so, because it would harken back to the days of the "supers" when people knew that only a few people "naturally" looked like a model. Nowadays with photoshop every model and celebrity can look unnaturally gorgeous and flawless.

 

[TheVeed]

Either that or I could be applying the concept of irony to the conversation. Any point before Anja became three-legged would have been preferable, really, pox-marks or not.

Some of those ads that have come out from the likes of Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger would have been better with 10% of the retouching that was in fact done.

Completely agree but again, those ads probably (not certain, but probably) were the art director's direction. Nothing a retoucher does can go past a director; the client is the one who dictates what to do and how far. Nothing can be published without the approval of the client.

There are tons of bad retouchers out there, as in any occupation, but nothing can go to press without the consent of the client.

No, I don't think so, because it would harken back to the days of the "supers" when people knew that only a few people "naturally" looked like a model. Nowadays with photoshop every model and celebrity can look unnaturally gorgeous and flawless.

EXACTLY. This is also one of the reasons why it is next to impossible for another supermodel to emerge. Celebrities have taken their place, and why? Because they can look just as good as models now. Julianne Moore, gorgeous 40-something, retouched (very well, I might add) to look younger than Karen Elson on Vogue Paris. Any US Vogue cover you look at, you see these flawless celebrities with their beautiful bodies and their glowy skin.

Models once represented a small genetic pool of women who had an out-of-world presence, of beauty. When every single person on a magazine cover can look like that now, well... there's no need for a model spokeswoman anymore.

Drew Barrymore for Cover Girl anyone?

 

[agee]

I am totally OK with the idea of the retoucher getting a credit along with the photographer, makeup artist and other contributors to the photo on the grounds of fairness if nothing else.

I don't object to the tagging although I suspect that when all is said and done, almost every photo with a human is going to carry the tag which brings us back to square one. The bestest shot on the roll representing the model and photographer werkin' it may have to be retouched because of a wayward lock of hair or an untucked shirt.

I am going to re-ask a question that I asked earlier and that is, is less time being allotted for photo shoots and if so, are the editors and other clients relying on post-production wizardry to make up for having (made up numbers) 250 photos to choose from rather than 500. I think that I have heard that less time is being allotted, especially for location shoots but can that be confirmed as well as if that has changed the role and importance of the post-production process?

 

[TheVeed]

I am totally OK with the idea of the retoucher getting a credit along with the photographer, makeup artist and other contributors to the photo on the grounds of fairness if nothing else.

I don't object to the tagging although I suspect that when all is said and done, almost every photo with a human is going to carry the tag which brings us back to square one. The bestest shot on the roll representing the model and photographer werkin' it may have to be retouched because of a wayward lock of hair or an untucked shirt.

I am going to re-ask a question that I asked earlier and that is, is less time being allotted for photo shoots and if so, are the editors and other clients relying on post-production wizardry to make up for having (made up numbers) 250 photos to choose from rather than 500. I think that I have heard that less time is being allotted, especially for location shoots but can that be confirmed as well as if that has changed the role and importance of the post-production process?

Maybe a little less time allotted because everything is shot digitally nowadays, but I'm not sure that's the reason. I think it's awareness, and clients learning more and more what Photoshop can do and how they can use it to sell their brand. Clients definitely rely more on post-production now. Even production designers, lighting, make-up artists, and stylists are lazier and more lax than they once were. Lazy models don't properly shave any more or beautify because... well, it can be taken care of in post-production now.

 

[Chloe Parks]

Ok THIS is toooo much: http://cocoperez.com/2010-10-26-jus...da-teen-star-photoshopped-looking-like-a-girl

 

[Chloe Parks]

Photoshop has gotten to a point where its laughable...and its disgusting to see

 

[iluvjeisa]

Completely agree but again, those ads probably (not certain, but probably) were the art director's direction. Nothing a retoucher does can go past a director; the client is the one who dictates what to do and how far. Nothing can be published without the approval of the client.

There are tons of bad retouchers out there, as in any occupation, but nothing can go to press without the consent of the client.



EXACTLY. This is also one of the reasons why it is next to impossible for another supermodel to emerge. Celebrities have taken their place, and why? Because they can look just as good as models now. Julianne Moore, gorgeous 40-something, retouched (very well, I might add) to look younger than Karen Elson on Vogue Paris. Any US Vogue cover you look at, you see these flawless celebrities with their beautiful bodies and their glowy skin.

Models once represented a small genetic pool of women who had an out-of-world presence, of beauty. When every single person on a magazine cover can look like that now, well... there's no need for a model spokeswoman anymore.

Drew Barrymore for Cover Girl anyone?

First, I'm completely with you there. The retoucher made the least grievous mistake because it could be that he is churning things out mindlessly and simply overwrote the image he wanted to send with an image that was portrayed a mythological monster. At least two people made a horrible mistake in the making of some of these ads that have cropped up lately, that much is for sure.

Second, there is an easy way to turn all this photoshopping idiocy around. You can show real images of the people that actually are so beautiful that they need next to no retouching - and you could preserve the air of something real....if that was the accepted standard it would require much more work to get most of the actresses to look as good as models...

But that requires the return of texture. As long as it's ok to use ridiculous smoothing techniques on everything without this turning people off, I suppose it's never going to change.

 

[senorgemma]

"I’ve seen my photos form Balenciaga recently and thought: “Am I that thin?” but than I realized that my arms were retouched in order to make them too thin. Maybe they just need a sort of sensation, like look at this poor thing... so thin.. how does she even walk?"
-Vlada Roslyakova
Not sure if this quote is relevant but hey, she's addressing retouching!

 

[fraiseap]

While I am in no way excusing the "three legged model" look, and object to reshaping models faces or bodies, it is pretty clear to me that some retouching is required by most clients.

I remember the first time I did a shoot for a MUAs book, my thoughts were "I need to show off this persons skill, so will do minimal Photoshop work".

I removed obvious skin imperfections but left it at that (the MUA was very happy with the shots). Later that week I decided to try out a few Photoshop techniques on the skin to make it very smooth while retaining skin texture. I asked the MUA what she thought (I thought I might have overdone it) and she said she absolutely adored the shots and was amazed at how good they looked.

My guess is that untouched shots would be rejected by most magazines.

 

[nomorerack]

the thing is...if we see models or actors and actresses looking so perfect, flaw not just less but like i said - perfect-, we want to know what special things they do or what products they use to have achieve this perfection, we then would follow their routine but after achieving nothing but...we end up disappointed and shift focus to another perfect picture seen on the magazine and same thing goes....

it's a very insecure world we are in

 

[iluvjeisa]

While I am in no way excusing the "three legged model" look, and object to reshaping models faces or bodies, it is pretty clear to me that some retouching is required by most clients.

I remember the first time I did a shoot for a MUAs book, my thoughts were "I need to show off this persons skill, so will do minimal Photoshop work".

I removed obvious skin imperfections but left it at that (the MUA was very happy with the shots). Later that week I decided to try out a few Photoshop techniques on the skin to make it very smooth while retaining skin texture. I asked the MUA what she thought (I thought I might have overdone it) and she said she absolutely adored the shots and was amazed at how good they looked.

My guess is that untouched shots would be rejected by most magazines.

And if you ask me, they're idiots for it. It's easy to focus on the detail - and of course you have to - but a necessary requirement for any artist should be able to travel between a detail-oriented and a holistic view.