Photoshop for fashion yay or nay

[~Gina~]

I am horrified by photoshop.
It`s a shame that it has become so common to use it, especially in the beauty advertisments (parfums, cremes, lip sticks etc.; there it is alright, but it still shows the plastic, heartless behind this).
Is it possible to combine photoshop with a good photograph, that really means something, brings up a feeling? Doesn`t the natural, unique, unperfect and rare thing make you listen up, look up ?
The most people I know, are not able to use photoshop. The pictures are plastic, they have no feeling;
The boarder where photoshop is not okay anymore, for me, is when you actually have to ask yourself if it is photoshopped.
Where are the times, when photographers had huge camaras carrying with them and made their photographs themselves..;

What do you think? Or do you have some examples for what is still okay for you ( if including art liberty) and what not?

 

[luckyme]

adobe photoshop is a tool, a very useful tool in educated hands. a camera is a tool as well. both bear the results of the user's ability.

 

[MissAnia]

nay for overusing photoshop. By overusing i mean changing face structure and body so that model looks better. It's acceptable to use photoshop just for some finishing tuches, not for an extremely photo change.

 

[shop7th]

^ I agree. I hate it when photoshop is used to make a person look skinnier or with more defined cheekbones. That's not even the real person then! I don't mind it for covering up some acne/scars or even fixing some wrinkles. But I've seen some people photoshopped so much that you can't even tell it's them.. and then what's the point in hiring that person to pose if you're just gonna change what they look like later on ps?

 

[xPedro]

Redbook's Photoshopped New Cover

Ready to see one of the most horrible things the magazine industry can inflict? The following pictures are the before and after shot from the cover of the recent Redbook, featuring Faith Hill.

According to WWD.com, Redbook editor Stacy Morrison said, “The retouching we did on Faith Hill’s photo for the July cover of Redbook is completely in line with industry standards. We are investigating how the unretouched images got released.”
Photoshopping is nice in theory and all, but this is terrible. This promotes a lie - it makes women look at her and wonder why they can't look like the women on the covers of fashion magazines. When in reality no one looks like that, not even Faith Hill - it's just the wonders of photoshop! It's a sad, sad day when the magazine industry's standards become so high that they have to go to such great lengths to promote a false ideal of how a woman should look.

source: frillr.com

 

[Alejandro]

i dont even think she looked bad on the original, i mean, she's not 19yrs old!

 

[TheGlassAngel]

Oh my god, they edited this part of her body too Even the elbows (?) have the be perfect. Insanity!

frill.com

 

[shop7th]

It's like they gave her a face lift in photoshop! The worst part though is that they took fat off of her arms and back.. that's so offensive. She looked fine before.. you don't need to photoshop off an inch of fat!

 

[MissAnia]

It makes me sad that they want every woman to be thin and they use photoshop to change a slim woman to a skinny one....

 

[MissAnia]

Check out this site: http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/digital.html
It's great!

 

[shop7th]

^Omg. The one of the girl in the blue bikini is actually shocking. Especially the work done on her face.

 

[vintageamour]

i minor photoshopping to pictures is okay but once the model becomes recognizable its taken way too far. I think if magazines showed more unairbrushed pictures society in general would have a much higher self esteem (wrinkles, pudge, and blemishes are normal!)

 

[SomethingElse]

I'm on the Nay Team. People are people! And I prefer real photographs of real people. I like wrinkles and grey hair and freckles and crow's feet and moles.

I wonder how much control the photographers have over their imagery in the media. Not much, I suspect.

 

[sethii]

the strangest part is that she grew an arm in the photoshopped version

in the original only one arm is visible.

how unfortunate for her

I dont mind this sort of retouching in fashion magazines on models because it's not supposed to be reportage photography some styles of photography though look good without much anti-wrinkling/de flabbing e.g. peter lindbergh.

 

[shop7th]

I don't know why.. but I don't mind photoshop used on models nearly as much as I do on 'real' people like celebrities. Maybe because it's a model's job to look good? But I think it's so stupid when models are so photoshopped to where you can't even tell it's them because they are chosen for their face and how they look in the first place.

That arm.

 

[gius]

this is so interesting...
is it really Photoshop that they use to do that?
i don't think Photoshop can do that... or it must be some special version or with a bunch of pricey filters

 

[sethii]

i think its just the normal version

 

[fourboltmain]

adobe photoshop is a tool, a very useful tool in educated hands. a camera is a tool as well. both bear the results of the user's ability.

Beautiful. You all have to realize that the majority of Photoshop's tools are based on old film photography tricks, like dodging, burning, cropping, the list goes on and on. Before you had Photoshop filters like Gaussian blur and diffuse glow, photographers had filters to slip over lenses to get these same effects.

I have no issues with magazines Photoshopping people to look 'better', especially in an industry that's based on looks, and smoke and mirrors really.

gius, all you do is clone the arm, paint it in and then blend until it works. The arm was added to create a sense of balance and stability, without that arm, she'd look twisted as all hell.

 

[gius]

i think its just the normal version

really? because i have photoshop and i can't do that, unless i paint it myself or use the clone tool...
and i've seen them on TV, using a program doing the exact same thing,
where they will just do one click and they can move a part of the arm to shrink it

 

[gius]

ah! I see your message now, fbm
so i was doing it the same way after all
they probably just clicked undo and then redo on TV
and i completely agree with you on those points about creating balance.. i would edit the same places myself. it's kind of out of proportion in the real life photo because of the angle of the shot and her pose..