Dislike of High Quality and Digital Images

[Yanka]

I know it's a weird topic to start, but I hope I'm not the only who has noticed this. Does anyone else think that since the onset of digital photography and especially those awful super high quality images, everyone's started looking a lot worse?
If you look at magazines from before 2000-2003, people looked nice - good, natural complexions, healthy tan, just generally likable and look-able. Nowdays, everyone's skin looks really washed out / dying / transparent / zombi. And those HQ images! When I look through some of the images from shows / events, I notice every single wrinkle / blemish / uneven colour, it's not even funny.
I used to think 'aha, they age just like normal people' until I realised even Dacota Fanning has mimical wrinkles in those HQ images, which I'm sure are unnoticable in real life. This is just wrong wrong wrong. Who really needs those? Im so paranoid about digital / HQ images, i never let myself get photographed anymore. Any opinions, especially from models/ photographers.

 

[ChloeFrancoise]

I have to agree. I don't need to see a person's pores, lines, etc., even more clearly somehow, than my own pores when I look in the mirror. I don't need to see someone's face with such detail. It weirds me out.

 

[Ariadne]

It does seem weird to see details of a person in a photo that I wouldn't notice even if I were right next to them. Even when they are wearing concealer & foundation, one can still see every little bump. Or if a woman hasn't shaved her legs in a day, one can even see that. It's almost like an invasion of privacy.

Looking at photos & films from the past, it seemed everybody had a beautiful complexion, which I hardly believe was the case. I can't recall any photos of classic film stars with all their tiny imperfections visible. But celebrities and models of today cannot keep anything hidden.

 

[Mchunu]

you know what? i agree with this thread and for some reason i thought i was the only one who disliked this. as someone who takes photos on a normal basis and of themself from time to time, it is VERY annoying when you see yourself in photos and after zooming, can see every single detail..things you didn't even notice you had it actually makes you quite self-conscious when speaking to other people

& its the same thing with TV too Back in, say 2002-2003, when they first started television in HD (high definition) you couldn't see imperfections so clearly as you can now & as someone said, you can even see imperfections if a woman in an HQ shot is wearing makek-up..even if she's wearing tons which sucks & surely, if you do see a photograph that there are no visible flaws, believe me the photographer has surely retouched them. *cough* Imaxtree *cough*

 

[Mchunu]

btw, might i add i think the biggest issue is appearance of the most minor, minor skin imperfections is a BIG thing. Sometimes i notice after taking candids of someone who has some of the most easily beautiful skin tone/texture can even look like they have the worse skin I know lighting is indeed a factor, but still

 

[gatano]

I disagree with you, digital photography properly done is way better that the old film one ... photography is to see things, not to hide things, it looks as the old discussions (more than a century ago) about the quality of painting superior to photography (obviously the old film one)

 

[adorefaith]

how do those HQ images get made?..it's insane...

 

[gatano]

if you see something "wrong" in the photo is the fault of the photographer or of the people that edited the image ... or even of the subject ... don't give responsibility to a technology that is just more precise and detailed.

 

[delfine]

The technology is not to blame. Cameras from 50 years ago could take just as detailed pictures than todays ones . It's just that in todays multimedia mad world there is so much output but not enough talented people to do it.

 

[Mchunu]

oh please

 

[Yanka]

From Monocle.com
By Tyler Brule

Digital photography is unquestionably faster and cheaper than film. But if you take a really good look at yourself in your latest party pictures shot on your 10-megapixel digi, you might not be quite so keen to ditch the 35mm. We at Monocle believe it's time for another shot at analogue.

Have you noticed that Hollywood, Taipei and Cairo celebrities are looking increasingly unwell? In the pages of Vogue and InStyle leading boys and breakthrough girls appear as if they might have liver conditions judging by their skin tones, on the front pages of Taiwanese dailies some of the biggest Chinese pop-stars look like they've had nasty run-ins with deep-fryers, and in the Arab world's celebrity weeklies Egyptian soap stars have complexions that suggest they've been trapped in sandstorms. At first glance the obvious answer to all these conditions is too much time spent with the cosmetic surgeon. On closer inspection however it's not a case of a nose job gone wrong, exploding lips or ears pulled too far back. Could it be one acid peel too many? Perhaps. Or is the source of the condition completely unrelated to the world of dermatology? What's more concerning is that no one is immune.
If you think your looks are intact, try this experiment. Go to the shoebox, album or envelope where you keep your photos. The only photos you have on paper are four or five years old? Even better. Now get your hands on a recently snapped party picture. If it's living inside your Olympus digital then download it and print it. Now place your four-year-old 35mm snap beside the digital one you've just printed and take a good, hard look at yourself. Ignoring the 48 months' difference, who's the more attractive? The slightly glowing, grainy you on film or the greyish, smooth, pixelated you that emerged from the Epson? Not convinced? Here's another exercise. Reach down beside the sofa or high up on a bookshelf and pull down a glossy magazine from circa 2001. Flip to a fashion story or the party pages and study the subjects. If you forgive the lapses of judgement in styling and make-up, doesn't everyone look like they maintain a decent diet and follow a la Prairie skin regime? Now pick up something fresh off the newsstand and compare the same types of stories. Are the party people not suffering from some painful-looking strobing disease? Does the girl in the Lanvin dress look like she's been made up to lie inside a satin-lined oak box?
Curiously, the Japanese don't suffer the same afflictions, or at least not on the same scale, despite the fact that they're behind most of the technology. At Japanese publishing houses there hasn't been quite the same rush to shoot every image digitally. Indeed, virtually all of our *stories shot in Japan, which is a considerable number, arrive on our photo desk the old fashioned way – as a stack of contact sheets in a Kodak or Fuji box. While the process is, of course, slower than going straight from digi Canon to MacPro, the results on page are well worth the old-school effort – particularly where skin is concerned.
As our cover suggests (shot on film and featuring Fuji's recently released 35mm camera) and as our Tokyo bureau Fiona Wilson reports in our culture pages, there's a growing resistance movement against going totally digital. We tend to agree. While hard, angular objects shot for still-life stories don't necessarily demand a move to film, and news stories that require a quick turnaround and *transmission make more sense shot digitally, we're proceeding with caution. So too are savvy publicists.
Fed up with complaints from clients who pose for cover stories only to end up looking like they have a critical vitamin deficiency, many PRs are now demanding that their most high-profile (read: high-maintenance) stars be shot exclusively on film. And who can blame them? In our dash to do things faster and cheaper, 2005 to 2010 might be remembered as the "pasty period". While the major manufacturers are working hard to improve the quality of skintones, future generations who look back at this period might need to be reminded that we were a little too hasty to adopt new technology and the planet wasn't crippled by an epidemic of eczema.

 

[Yanka]

That's an excellent article, explains my frustration perfectly. I DO think, photographer is the one who calls the shots 90% of the time, but the medium is so so important.

 

[gatano]

The technology is not to blame. Cameras from 50 years ago could take just as detailed pictures than todays ones . It's just that in todays multimedia mad world there is so much output but not enough talented people to do it.

that's the point

also today if you (are "crazy" enough to) shot large format film you got even much more detail than digital
the major difference from digital vs film is the number of shoot you can obtain, and for this reasons more image to manage more unskilled people unable to develop the photographic results properly

anyway I look stunning in photos, even (obviously digital) self portraits

I also look good in film photos, but I was a baby, it was easy to look cute

it's a fun discussion this, I saw something similar film vs digital in some photo boards circa 10-5 years ago ...

also all real people (photographers) I know that advocated film just bough their digital camera this year and this are now their main tools, probably this previoisly film people are the most unskilled to use digital cameras ... just give them time ...they will learn

 

[GBArt]

Great thread!

 

[Style-Addict]

Thank you for the article Yanka, excellent read!

 

[nickzantop]

I hardly think that this is a bad thing; if anything it is a good thing. Fashion photography is and has always been in a constant state of evolution. Done well, it can serve as a social commentary. Fashion editorial photography can be so much more than simply "pretty" and if the trend is currently showing the way people really look; which is to say NOT perfect - I see this as a good thing. Celebrities do not have flawless skin, supermodels do have a wrinkle or two here and there...and if showing them as they really look is what is "in"...that's a great thing.

The medium choice between film or digital has little to nothing to do with the details shown - a film image, even shot with 35mm can easily show as much detail as a digital image. For those who are paranoid to be photographed with a digital camera, well that is unfortunate that they are not comfortable with their own appearance. Digital cameras do not add wrinkles, pimples, or pounds to people. So much more goes into the photography process that determines how much detail is visible than a simple choice between film and digital. Everything from the white balance used (warmer color tones make for tanner, healthier looking people and show less flaws), flash (strobe lighting puts out a huge amount of light that produces a very sharp image that will show lots of detail), filters (both on camera and in post production can make a subject's skin look much smoother or tanner), lens choice, and many other factors all help determine how sharp an image is and how well the subject's flaws will show up. Digital capture is just as capable of making a subject look flawless, tan, and friendly as film is.

In regards to film photography many factors determine the sharpness of an image as well - lens choice & optical quality, lighting again, and of course the film choice - not all films produce identical images - there are hundreds of varieties of film, each with their own unique attributes. Some produce images that are warm, some cool, some grainy, etc.

What many people fail to realize about digital capture when talking about digital slr cameras, with both 35mm and medium format sensors is that once the sensor records the image - the process is only half done. Most professional images are being shot in RAW format...this gives the photographer or retoucher a great deal of flexibility in post processing. Everything about the image can be adjusted, from the saturation to the sharpness to the tones. If magazines either fail to realize the customization that can be done to images captured digitally (which many do thanks to hiring staff with only a business background) or choose to leave images looking as real as possible, this can hardly be blamed simply on the choice of digital over film.

In regards to that article posted that said " Digital photography is unquestionably faster and cheaper than film", that is not really true either. While it may typically be faster than film, professional post production of digitally captured images is very time consuming (and costly). As far as being cheaper than film, that may be true for the average consumer simply taking snapshots at their child's graduation with a $50 digital camera...but when talking about professional level photography...digital is not really cheaper - the main advantage to digital over film capture is immediate results. Professional level 35mm digital cameras like the Canon 1ds III, start at $8000 for the body alone. Medium format digital cameras can easily run in cost into the tens of thousands of dollars - the Hasselblad h3d medium format digital camera sells for $39,999.00

So, like with anything, generalizations are best avoided.

 

[gatano]

Phase One P65+ a just announced 60MPixels (real) FULL frame medium format back costs only $39,990 or $41,990 with the camera (a great deal) at this price to get the same results with film you have to spend a lot more for 1000 captures (and you have to add professional film camera with glass that is not inexpensive anyway and lights - you willl need more lights with film) ... but with digital you can (virtually) make millions shoots ... digital is cheap ..not it's quality if it's in the right hands

(H3DII-50 the new 50MP blad still will cost $39,995)

you will see more "inexpensive" pores as technologies advances