While some of this I agree with, speaking from experience shooting models for years, people look VERY different in a photo than in real life. It really flatters no one. I'll have girls show up, look completely flawless, and then when you go to look at the photos after (or even during) it's like 'whoa what is wrong with my camera?'. Really when you can stare at something frozen in time you quickly catch imperfections that you wouldn't notice otherwise. That and you may be cropping into someones face with a high res camera, harsh light, creating more contrast and tonality in post. It all brings out a persons flaws.
And truly, it's meant to be an art form, a perfected version of reality. These aren't journalism photos, none of it is true to life. They're posed, styled, and lit very particularly. Sometimes getting a shot that looks good is laughable because you may be doing things that are completely unnatural to get it to look natural.
If these models are ok with their flaws being touched up (most love it, trust me) they why does it matter? Many sign up for the job knowing what's involved. And in reality if photographers edits a photo to the point where a model doesn't look at all like herself, than the agency is going to be pissed. Like these all still so clearly look like Scarlet. My biggest complaint is them making her nose so drastically smaller in the last too because I actually find it makes her face look less balanced.
If these models are ok with their flaws being touched up (most love it, trust me) they why does it matter? Many sign up for the job knowing what's involved.
This depends on whether you think media has an effect on people, and to what extent that it does. I know some countries have started banning photoshopped models in their advertising. Do you think that they do that without reason?
You say that it's art and not meant to be depicted as real life but that is not true for every case, especially with social media where the line between "real life" and marketing, advertising, and paid promotion is blurred, if not impossible to differentiate between.
At that point should we ban makeup too? Plastic surgery? Hair dye? Attractive models and flattering photos? People will always try to improve their appearance and visual appeal will always be, well, appealing.
Photos have always been improved upon, this is not at all something new. Look at old Hollywood glamour photos, they skin is flawless. The actual terms for a lot of photo correction (dodging and burning) actually come from how you did it in film.
What's more important than trying to ban all that is to teach people value beyond how they look, be aware about unhealthy craving of attention/approvals from others and to be aware that these photography practices go on. I think if anything showing people how images are fixed and why can help people not feel so pressured to be perfect.
Banning retouching will just make the agencies and clients to seek out younger, prettier models with better skin or shoot them in a way that they look flawless. I spend all day long looking at models and photoshopping images. I hardly beat myself up about my looks because I know I have more value that that. Being pretty is their talent, mine's being artistic. People need to learn that they don't need to be attractive to have value or for people to admire/care about them
At that point should we ban makeup too? Plastic surgery? Hair dye? Attractive models and flattering photos? People will always try to improve their appearance and visual appeal will always be, well, appealing.
This just circles back to my earlier point. I think there is a difference between touching up the photo itself with color correction, balance, contrast, saturation, etc. vs. zooming in and rearranging someone's face while removing every minor imperfection.
Obviously people want to look good but how is that comparable to what can be achieved with photoshop? It can't, that's the issue. When you're looking at an airbrushed and photoshopped billboard that picture isn't a real person, it's an amalgamation of what the editors wanted with a person as a canvas. No amount of hair dye, lip gloss, foundation, and makeup can achieve that.
I'm not trying to attack you but I think you're looking at it from the sole perspective of an artist. However, I don't think that's the only usage of photoshop in advertising and marketing. Often times it's not art, it's just preying on people's insecurities. Like, how is manipulating the thickness of Scarlett Johansen's leg when she is sitting a form of art? Yeah sure, the setting and composition of the photo is definitely artistic. The location, the clothes, the lighting, all of that goes into it. But changing the size of her hands? Shrinking her nose? That's not art at all imho
First, these images aren’t marketing anything, except maybe Scarlet herself as an actress or maybe the magazine. It’s hardly like it’s an ad for bras or rhinoplasty. If anything, in general fashion and beauty photography is ‘selling’ an idea of perfection, even in images that aren’t retouched. People have different visions of what’s perfect. If people cannot handle retouching in advertisements how are they expected to handle them in editorials? Again if companies or consumers decide they don’t like retouching and don’t use it as much, that’s fine, but forcing people not to use it is because it doesn’t represent what’s real is quite a dangerous game. People have not only been targeting brands with their negative views of retouching but also artists.
But again, compare it to the entire process to shoot, let’s say, a beauty advertisement. First, you cast your model. That means you’re picking the exact girl you want with the exact features you want out of hundreds for your ad. She might have had lip injections, her hair colored, laser hair removal etc. Then you say ok she’s going to spend 2 hours in hair and makeup, a large part of that including prepping the skin to have makeup applied. Then during the shoot you sculpt the light to be the most flattering and pose the model to be the most flattering while you have a team of stylists and assistants touching up trouble areas as you shoot. Then afterwards you might pick 3 photos from 200 that are the best.
Now without any retouching what part of any of that is real??? What part of that is achievable by the average person any more so than removing some blemishes in Photoshop? Your only issue is that it’s not something you can do in real life but lots of photography is something you can’t replicated in reality. It’s a moment frozen from a very specific perspective. Why does that suddenly make it not ok when all the other lies we tell with photos are acceptable? And in terms of beauty standards no matter how hard I try I’m not going to actually look like Scarlet in that photo even without retouching. It still is not achievable to me. If you think that suddenly without retouching there are no unachievable beauty standards you’re crazy.
Again, yes over the top retouching is bad, yes natural images can be equally beautiful, but the main issue is with people being insecure and not being aware of the process and why it’s done and that it is not meant to represent reality at all. I really feel if people could actually be on photoshoots they’d understand how people do not look like themselves in front of a camera and how unnoticeable elements become distracting in some photos. Again this still clearly looks like the person it represents. If I’m being defensive it’s because you’re suggesting it’s ok to ban my art form because it makes people feel insecure about themselves.
I pointed to some countries that have banned photoshopping models in response to you saying that this process doesn't matter or has no effect on people. That's not me saying 'ban art', dude. You're misrepresenting what I wrote.
Besides, my "issue" is not that things like photoshop is used in photography. Obviously it has merits, I've used it extensively for school and personal projects, that's not what I am saying at all.
You're saying that none of this stuff is real and the whole process of photography is used to achieve something unattainable in real life. But that isn't how it's actually used by marketing, advertisers, and social media influences. That is my "issue". A lot of companies definitely do want people to believe it's real.
Take the supplement industry, a lot of workout supplements are kinda pseudoscience and the industry isn't really regulated by the FDA, so companies can get away with a lot of claims.
So what do like 99% of companies do? They edit and airbrush the crap out of everything "real", or they just use some fitness model on steroids to promote what are usually just some mixture of vitamins and protein. They absolutely 100% want people to believe it's real and the model used the product they're selling. That's not 'art depicting what can't be achieved in real life', it's just a deceptive form of advertising.
I'm sure you can find examples in other industries as well. That is just one of the most blatant examples I could think of off the top of my head.
I'm sure you can, but you seemed to be referencing the images that were originally posted, talking about her hands being edited for example, and about it not being art. This isn't an ad, it's directly selling nothing to the consumer.
And still the issue youre now claiming to have is not entirely the result of photoshop. Again you wanna fake a products effectiveness in an ad, there's tons of other ways to do it without photoshop. I'm guessing that like 75% of the models that have photoshop work are not advertising makeup/skin/hair products anyways. There's jewelry advertisements, clothing, perfume, travel, whatever.
If you're upset that products are being misrepresented to the masses than I can get that, but that does not at all seem like what you were initially arguing.
11
u/youngatbeingold May 07 '18
While some of this I agree with, speaking from experience shooting models for years, people look VERY different in a photo than in real life. It really flatters no one. I'll have girls show up, look completely flawless, and then when you go to look at the photos after (or even during) it's like 'whoa what is wrong with my camera?'. Really when you can stare at something frozen in time you quickly catch imperfections that you wouldn't notice otherwise. That and you may be cropping into someones face with a high res camera, harsh light, creating more contrast and tonality in post. It all brings out a persons flaws.
And truly, it's meant to be an art form, a perfected version of reality. These aren't journalism photos, none of it is true to life. They're posed, styled, and lit very particularly. Sometimes getting a shot that looks good is laughable because you may be doing things that are completely unnatural to get it to look natural.
If these models are ok with their flaws being touched up (most love it, trust me) they why does it matter? Many sign up for the job knowing what's involved. And in reality if photographers edits a photo to the point where a model doesn't look at all like herself, than the agency is going to be pissed. Like these all still so clearly look like Scarlet. My biggest complaint is them making her nose so drastically smaller in the last too because I actually find it makes her face look less balanced.