Photoshop manipulation

[daphnep]

A fascinating analysis of the editing done to photographs from Victoria's Secret was linked today from Boingboing:

Part I:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html

Part II:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/329-The-Secret-is-Out.html

When I say "everything that's published in fashion magazines and advertising is edited", this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just the clumsily-removed handbag erased out, not just the gently-reshaped limbs and highlighted eyes and teeth and digitally plumped-up breasts, but a key thing that I often see but have a hard time identifying precisely, without the specific "before" photo or actual light set-up in front of me: All surfaces should have similar lighting. If her face is dark on one side and light on the other, then her arms should have the same pattern. However, this isn't what we are seeing. None of her body parts have proper lighting.

The author goes on to point out specific evidence for these alterations using a series of photo analysis tools that I've never seen before, a comparison of the model's skin tone in this and another photo, etc.

(Once again, I reiterate a point from previous conversations: such edited photos are morally neutral. Bad artistry, such as the removed handbag, sure is fun to mock, but I do not support any sort of creative limitations on what photographers and graphic designers may do to their work. I do, however, support educating the public so that we can be visually literate and easily realize the differences between fashion illustration and "real life". Websites such as the "hacker factor" are providing educational tools, and that's why I'm reposting it.)

Comments

[molinaslim.livejournal.com]

I bought that dress in grey. I love it.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

Ha! And you need no pumping or smoothing whatsoever, to totally rock it as a fashion item!

That's awesome.

[molinaslim.livejournal.com]

Not that it wouldn't be nice to have my own personal photoshop artist tweaking my image...

[karenscrayons.livejournal.com]

Facinating.

[kylecassidy.livejournal.com]

there are lot of photo retouchers & retouching houses who have commercial websites up with examples of their before & after work.

[kylecassidy.livejournal.com]

check out glenn feron:

http://glennferon.com/portfolio1/

he knocked 10 years off of westly clark for the cover of his book "time to lead"

[hatmix.livejournal.com]

Amazing!! Thank you so much for linking this!

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

That's awesome! I've posted links to some of them, before, but none of the ones I've found have been this extensive. That's so cool!

I know the celebrity ones often have contracts about not releasing their images as part of portfolios...oddly enough, I like a lot of the "product" ones, too--real chrome isn't shiny enough, real glass not glassy enough. This is fantastic!

[prmolina.livejournal.com]

In college I took a course on photography and after learning how to develop and print black and white they had us take some of our photos and "spot" them. Use ink and brush and fix places where miniscule pieces of tarnished silver had flecked off the photo paper leaving a white spot. I couldn't do it. I made some streaks off to one side, slopped some ink in, but it just was morally wrong. The very idea destroyed the whole and entirety of the appeal of photography to me.

For me the appeal of the photo arts is that they didn't really require manual dexterity. I have never, ever, sat down with pencil or brush and paper and been able to bring forth what I had in my mind's eye.
Just wrong. Every last single time.
But with a camera every once in a blue moon, if I take enough snaps, if I happen to have a camera, if I'm in the zone, if, if, if... I can see an image in my mind, adjust the controls, compose and when the image comes back there it is - my vision, however humble, made flesh.
Photo Manipulation is ok, if you like that sort of things. But its just not Photography as I experience it.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

I'd like to think that "pure" photography still has an important place in the world--in the art world, in particular, but also in the realm of photojournalism, and probably others as well...just not in advertising, any longer.

You describe so well the assets that the pure "mechanical" side of photography bring to the table...ironic, isn't it, since it was this aspect that made people disregard photos as "art" in the beginning. Now it's like an almost nostalgic component. Thanks for this.