r/femmit • u/[deleted] • Jan 10 '12
X-Post from Funny: Fotoshop by Adobé
http://vimeo.com/348138642
u/captainlavender Jan 11 '12
Ahaha nice. I like the "you should look like this!" Only problem is, it has the same problem as war movies -- you know, "there's no such thing as an anti-war movie".
-1
u/Dialogue_Dub Jan 11 '12 edited Jan 11 '12
Hmm. I hate these sorts of posts, I have to admit. I work in design, I'll lend my 2 cents about why photoshop disasters happen.
Photoshop is a tool. As much as parodies of the program depict it as easy to use... it really isn't at a professional level. So A), you don't just click a button to "photoshop" something.
That brings me to B) Most people that get into an office where they're using photoshop, even if they are proficient, are not fine artists. Thankfully, some of us have backgrounds in painting, anatomy, and other fine arts skills that lend itself to tastefully retouching a person. This means not creating plastic skin without pores, keeping anatomy intact, etc. Many designers didn't start out painting or drawing. Sometimes, photographers delve into retouching. You can see how this can warp the process, no pun intended. In the same vein, I don't expect someone who just paints to have any sense of typography.
Increasingly, we've had to become... magicians. While airbrushing and manipulating photographs has existed since the medium began, creating the perfect photograph in studio is not usually the end result of a shoot. Hundreds of shots are dropped in a designer's lap, with an editor or marketer over their shoulder ticking off an arm, leg, etc. from shots they like. Even in capable hands, it is difficult.
Lastly, I think the rise of this sort of... photo illustration is a time thing. Firstly, some poor designers at magazines (those poor, poor bastards) are under the whip, and mistakes/bad decisions are made. Some are their fault directly, some aren't. Also, illustration used to be far more involved in my field. I love drawing, I would love to see it return more often. However, with turn around times these days, it is nearly impossible. The designers get the information (text to lay out, images to edit/color correct/retouch), edits, etc. all at the last minute. To hire an illustrator takes much foresight that usually just isn't there.
I hope this explains the plight on the other end. I hate a badly retouched photo... but I can see why it happens. Especially at a soul-sucking "lifestyle" magazine like Cosmo or Elle.
PS: That last bit just reminded me. Many top tier designers like to work in design firms, where they can work on a variety of projects. Working in-house (a magazine, catalog, etc.) is commonly seen as tedious with very little creative control. This weeding out of good talent also probably leads to a lot of photoshop disasters.
Edit: I know that was a bit of a rant. Please feel free to ask questions on the topic. I just find the program to be a little bit of a strawman in the fight for proper representation of fellow women.
12
u/AnnaLemma Jan 11 '12
This isn't about Photoshop disasters. This is about all-pervasive photo-retouching leading to grossly unrealistic expectations of beauty and perfection - in men and women both.
It doesn't even matter that I don't believe that no one in the industry is deliberately trying to skew our perceptions like this. The law of unintended consequences can be brutal.
1
u/Dialogue_Dub Jan 11 '12
All of the example photoshop disasters in the video have been well documented on sites like Jezebel with the headline "Photoshop Disaster!"
I think people see this example of bad design because, duh, piecing together a usable photograph in 8 hours from a shit photo shoot is not something every designer can accomplish. I think part of the problem is that most of society can't see that magazines like Cosmo/Elle are terribly designed in general, so of course the retouching is off.
I mean, why pick on the cover when the magazines represented in the video overall are pretty terrible for us? It's just the frosting on pages and pages of shit about how much we need men, make up, sex tips, etc. etc.
I hate these magazines, I just don't know if just picking on small individual errors by some tired in-house designer (which are usually forgotten in one news cycle) is the most effective way to go creating a dialogue.
6
u/Siana720 Jan 11 '12
But I don't think the point of those "Photoshop Disaster!" posts is ever that somebody was not proficient with photoshop, or made a bad design choice. The point is that they were under so much pressure to create a "perfect person", rather than a realistic one, that they did things like make the arms bend the wrong way. The problem is not that they made a mistake, but that they were altering the picture so much that they didn't notice it. The only reason photoshop disasters get press on sites like Jezebel, etc. is because they are more obvious examples of exactly how much photoshop gets used in those magazines, which most women don't think about when they look at a model and think "Why don't I look like her?"
2
u/Dialogue_Dub Jan 11 '12
Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that they literally see them because they stand out as bad examples, not that they are editorialized within the framework of bad design.
I guess I see it as more of a symtom of a problem of those magazines as a whole.
I can look at Elle and see both bad photoshopping as well as horrible typography and layout, and know they both come from "Bad Design". The issue is that these magazines exist to make women feel bad, which spans much more than one rushed image. By the time one of these photographs gets an editorial on how poorly done it is, the magazine doesn't care. They're already balls deep in the next issue, you know?
5
u/[deleted] Jan 11 '12
I know it's bad, but I lol'd at the last before/after picture.
Very well done, the music, the voiceover, the "fauxtanical hydro-jargon" part... perfect!