The Effects of Photoshop on Society

[Bahiyya]

Me too! ^^ I'm also both disappointed in the news about the Dove ads....and yet filled with admiration for Dangin as well because he really did make those ads look miraculously untouched and natural. Truly his masterpiece .

 

[kokobombon]

another take of the Tommy Hilfiger SS2007 ad with one-legged-Anja



Scanned by VickiB

 

[iluvjeisa]

Not seeing the forest for the trees, a holistic world view - suddenly all these things make sense. How can someone decide to photoshop off one leg thinking people will not notice? And why doesn't the publishing company refuse to publish images with such gross errors? I mean, they want ad revenue, but I think there must be a couple of Hilfiger ads with fully limbed models?

 

[Fontenrose]

Interesting article about a master retoucher

Around thirty celebrities keep him on retainer, in order to insure that any portrait of them that appears in any outlet passes through his shop, to be scrubbed of crow’s-feet and stray hairs.

“I think retouching is too much when it reaches the point of disfiguring,” Dangin said. “I want people to have an understanding of the skeleton and musculature and how it works. There is nothing worse than looking at an ankle or a calf that’s wrong. This is what bad retouching can do—you see in magazines girls having their legs slimmed and they no longer have tibias and femurs, and it’s weird.”

Dangin requires his artists to take in-house classes in anatomy and figure drawing; prospective hires must complete a fifty-six-question quiz covering everything from computer science to art history. Cheekbones, he said, are the classic locus of amateur flubs. “The minute you change this delicate balance of light and shadow, if you change by removing shadow because the girl has a lot of bad pores, suddenly this girl will look as if she has been Botoxed,”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins

 

[sethii]

Givenchy Beauty Fall 2010 : Elena Melnik by Liz Collins

[fashioncopious.typepad.com via tarsha]

Retouchers need to accept that when people twist their bodies into unnatural poses there will be folds in the skin, wrinkling and muscles showing. Removing those things does not make it look beautiful! The 'neck' here is more like the middle part of someone's arm. Very scary image

Without retouching

[stardustfashion.com]

[elle.ru]

 

[iluvjeisa]

These are some of the main topics I can think of concerning this topic:

1. What are the impacts of Photoshop and retouching on society?

2. Is there too much Photoshop? Why?

3. Why are even fine publishing houses and well known brands releasing images that are - well - offending to the eye?

4. Why is there so much retouching?

 

[Unknownpleasures]

1. What are the impacts of Photoshop and retouching on society?
Well,most people see it as something bad.Companies try to sell something that people might now always work as good for everyone and that is sometimes, somehow, someone else's vision of beauty.

2. Is there too much Photoshop? Why?
No,I don't think there is.The retoucher takes as much time as he thinks the photo needs it.It could take some minutes changing lighting and removing a zit as it could take 10+ hours retouching hair,skin,physical complexion,lighting,sharpness,brightness,etc.So there's not really something as a much photoshop ,there is something as bad photoshop,though.

3. Why are even fine publishing houses and well known brands releasing images that are - well - offending to the eye?
How are they offending to the eye?They sell a product and in order to sell a product they need to sell an image that should be as perfect possible.People would not buy make up from a brand that shows women with oily skin and wrinkles,people would buy make up from a brand that shows young women with perfect flawless skin,because women want to look like that.

4. Why is there so much retouching?
Because the picture needs it.That's why.

 

[iluvjeisa]

1. What are the impacts of Photoshop and retouching on society?
Well,most people see it as something bad.Companies try to sell something that people might now always work as good for everyone and that is sometimes, somehow, someone else's vision of beauty.

2. Is there too much Photoshop? Why?
No,I don't think there is.The retoucher takes as much time as he thinks the photo needs it.It could take some minutes changing lighting and removing a zit as it could take 10+ hours retouching hair,skin,physical complexion,lighting,sharpness,brightness,etc.So there's not really something as a much photoshop ,there is something as bad photoshop,though.

3. Why are even fine publishing houses and well known brands releasing images that are - well - offending to the eye?
How are they offending to the eye?They sell a product and in order to sell a product they need to sell an image that should be as perfect possible.People would not buy make up from a brand that shows women with oily skin and wrinkles,people would buy make up from a brand that shows young women with perfect flawless skin,because women want to look like that.

4. Why is there so much retouching?
Because the picture needs it.That's why.

1. Well, I would guess a lot of people would say that slimming down already thin models and removing the flaws that come with emaciation (veins, bones etc) might become a problem as high achieving women aim for the best.

2. No - there is such a thing as too much photoshop. This occurs when people overdo the retouching, not having the art as an aim because they know nothing about art, but because they focus on details. This is a speculation...but consultants get paid by the hour, so the more worthless, redundant retouching you do the more you get paid. Possibly.

3. Have a look at this Tommy Hilfiger ad.

Also, it might be good to keep in mind that people did buy make-up and the like before the advent of Photoshop.

4. No, that's not it. Helmut Newton got on fine without Photoshop.

 

[tigerrouge]

The most interesting part of the original article for me was:

He is, more than anything, the consigliere for a generation of photographers uncomfortable with, or uninterested in, the details of digital technology. According to Cotton, “Pascal is actually an unwritten author of what is leading the newest areas of contemporary image-making.”

These days, because of the relatively easy access to technology, it means anyone can consider themselves a photographer, without having to go through the technical apprenticeship that was necessary in times gone past. So post-production has reached the stage where it's as much about compensating for the errors made by a photographer, as it is removing the flaws on a model's face. In so many cases, the 'Master' is not the one wielding the camera at the time, but the one who sits at the screen for hours afterwards.

And the 'plastic aesthetic' has become so widespread that there's no longer any great thrill in seeing it. It's become commonplace - and even expected. We mentioned in the Weight thread that we're now in a crazy situation where you see airbrushed images of a celebrity looking a certain way - a way that the celebrity then has to start emulating in reality, in order to look like 'themselves'. It's not enough to be young and gorgeous anymore, the standards of perfection have been lifted so high, that a 24-year-old has to get plastic surgery to achieve it, so that she can look like what we've come to expect she should look like, thanks to the thousands of post-processed images we've seen of her.

And as much as we like to say that 'we're aware that everything is airbrushed', on some level, that message hasn't got through to our visual cortex, which is eating up these images like they're the truth. Our eyes adjust to what we most commonly see.

 

[Unknownpleasures]

1.No,but they don't slim down anorexic or extremely thin models.They slim down people that is slightly bigger (not only talking about waist and that ,but arms and shoulders and body in general)
Here's this picture taken from Amydresser.com portfolio

amydressel.com

As you can see they did make her look thiner but in a good way,she was a little too big and she looks ok now and she still looks healthy.

in this other picture the girls are thin already so they don't photoshop them that much and only highlight their bodies

same source: amydresser.com

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 .

2.-noo!there's really not such thing as much photoshop,trust me.I do photoshop sometimes and it's really easy to use the liquify filter and in 5 minutes you have a thin girl,it's that easy.what some retouchers don't seem to understand is that they do need to make the photos look realistic,the skin should be smoothed in a way that you can still see some texture on their skin,you can retouch the eyes but the eyes must be in a real color not in a unreal color like a very bright green or purple or yellow,some of these eye colors don't exist in real life.

osorrisodogato.wordpress.com
does this eye look real to you?does it look appealing?no,it looks fake

hannahhavoc.deviantart

what about this other one?she looks pretty,this photo is slightly retouched yet very natural and beautiful.Which one looks better to you?

whattheskinny.wordpress.com
now,here...the retoucher did and awful job making the girl thinner mainly because it's too much and doesn't look real,also because the liquify job is pretty obvious because the zone where he made her thinner looks more blurry than the rest of the photo,the body is also very disproportionated (sp?) I bet it took like 10 minutes if much...

3-yeah,it's so weird and scary and creppy,but it might not be photoshop and could have been the photographers fault ,though i'm leaning towards blaming the retoucher because the guy's pants look weird in the photo the left leg looks tighter than the other one,it could have been that anja's leg was weird positioned or something so they made the other leg look bigger to hide the flaw-- if you know what I mean.

4-uh but when did people buy make up before retouching?like back in the egyptians time?If I'm not wrong even in the past century drawings were used to advertise ,and even when they started using real models they retouched the photos in some way ,there are so many tricks to make a picture look good such as lighting,make up,poses,angles,and there's retouching without using photoshop,you can manipulate a film just as you can manipulate digitals .

Here's this video of these guys manipulating film

http://vimeo.com/8828331

frenky@ vimeo.com

Fine,Helmut Newton got on fine w/o photoshop and so did Tim Walker and I do love his work,that has nothing to do.

On the other hand,I think I'm lagging and mistaking retouch and photoshop ;before you say anything I'll say that photoshop is the cheapest way to retouch then so you can save money you'd spend on lighting,make up,etc.
And these photos prove it

http://www.bryanboy.com/bryanboy_le...louis-vuitton-photos-raw-and-unretouched.html

they didn't use much lighting but the final result is good.

 

[iluvjeisa]

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.

 

[tigerrouge]

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.

 

[iluvjeisa]

^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...

 

[FashionFollower]

An interesting article.

 

[JustABoy]

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.

 

[Unknownpleasures]

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.

 

[iluvjeisa]

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.

 

[ErnstLudwig]

with PS / AAE around... even Stalin could attend events

 

[Fontenrose]

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!

 

[silk skin paws]

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.