Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 08 Nov 2013 (Friday) 10:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Severly Photoshop'ed

 
grahamclarkphoto
Member
Avatar
183 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2013
Location: San Francisco, California
     
Dec 23, 2013 18:30 |  #61

davidc502 wrote in post #16434794 (external link)
This is a video from CNN that talks about how if photoshop editing has gone too far.

It does cause a standard of percieved perfection for women as well as men. It's not just that, for me I wonder if photoshopping has gone to far in a lot of other areas as well.

http://www.cnn.com …piper-photoshop-video.hln (external link)


I always think of the famous line from master landscape photographer Galen Rowell: "There's so much digital adding of stuff here and there that photographers may as well become painters." - Galen Rowell


- -
Graham Clark | grahamclarkphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
steelbluesleepr
Goldmember
1,234 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
     
Dec 23, 2013 18:48 as a reply to  @ post 16439233 |  #62

I'll just leave this here:
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=mmtYbQGCxsg (external link)


-Jayson- my flickr (external link)
In the bag: 5D mark II+Vello grio/10d+grip/Canon 17-40L/Canon 28-135/Canon 50 1.8/Canon 35-80 Macro Conversion/Vivitar 135 2.8 M42/Vivitar 28 2.5 M42/Yongnuo YN460II x3/Yongnuo RF-602 x3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:28 |  #63

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16549378 (external link)
But using good lighting and posing techniques, you set unrealistic expectations by making a picture that's better than reality. You really should stop doing that.

Well, I don't shoot models if that is what you mean. I do wonder sometimes at the unusual composition I see here and there.

What you're implying is very grey too. How much lighting is considered ok? How much body language is considered "not posing"?

I don't agree with ultra fake looking photographs either. However, supplementing existing natural light is crucial, like using a reflector somewhere to lighten up the shadows in the name of getting more detail on the sensors. These are all due to how the current sensors handle contrast.

All these not only make a good photograph, it makes it pleasing to the eye too. Whether or not I manage to make the model look "better" than how she really looks like, is open to subjective discussion but I'll really try not to make her look worse than she really is.

I try not to use assistive lighting as much as possible but sometimes getting that shot is more important.

This somehow bring back the age old debate of creative vs. purist photography. Nothing's change much except that in digital photography we just have more control over the "dark room" process compared to when we were shooting film. That's assuming you're not developing the film yourself.

I can appreciate both creative and purist approach. They produce marvelous results when done right and for the right purposes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:08 |  #64

Aswald wrote in post #16550245 (external link)
What you're implying is very grey too. How much lighting is considered ok? How much body language is considered "not posing"?

I don't agree with ultra fake looking photographs either. However, supplementing existing natural light is crucial, like using a reflector somewhere to lighten up the shadows in the name of getting more detail on the sensors. These are all due to how the current sensors handle contrast.

All these not only make a good photograph, it makes it pleasing to the eye too.

You're imposing standards of beauty which are cultural constructs onto unsuspecting victims, slowly cornering them into compliance with accepted stereotypes by society... ;)

I'm just kidding btw carrying the argument to the extreme


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:21 as a reply to  @ DocFrankenstein's post |  #65

I agree that make-up in itself, can be just as "deceiving". Where do we draw the line?

Some women look gorgeous with hours of MU applied, but you wouldn't even recognize them after it wears off/ is removed. There's a reason one form of MU is called concealer. ;)


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Dec 24, 2013 00:51 |  #66

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16550303 (external link)
You're imposing standards of beauty which are cultural constructs onto unsuspecting victims, slowly cornering them into compliance with accepted stereotypes by society... ;)

I'm just kidding btw carrying the argument to the extreme

I'm always game for good, constructive argument. Extreme or not. :D

In more ways than one, I do agree with you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dbeugel
Senior Member
Avatar
523 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Yorkshire, UK
     
Dec 24, 2013 05:34 |  #67

Are people blaming PS and Advertising for anorexia etc now? That's as bad as the folk who blame Call of Duty for mass shootings.


I own a DSLR, some lenses and some lights.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 26, 2013 08:15 |  #68

dbeugel wrote in post #16550748 (external link)
Are people blaming PS and Advertising for anorexia etc now? That's as bad as the folk who blame Call of Duty for mass shootings.

not blaming but PS and advertising does contribute to some misconceptions




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Dec 26, 2013 08:24 |  #69

watt100 wrote in post #16554573 (external link)
not blaming but PS and advertising does contribute to some misconceptions

If advertising did not influence behavior, no one would advertise!


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Dec 26, 2013 21:26 |  #70

Perhaps, we are all guilty of advertisement propaganda in more ways than one.

Otherwise, we'd be looking at nameless cameras to buy instead of Canon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Auen
Member
64 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: The Republic
     
Jan 04, 2014 09:44 |  #71

The one thing that kind of makes me giggle about this debate is that fashion photography is probably the biggest offender, and a lot of fashion photography is wildly unrealistic to begin with. Ever been to the beach and see someone dressed like this?

http://3.bp.blogspot.c​om …apher-Shaun-Alexander.jpg (external link)


---------------
Some light tight boxes, somes lenses, some stuff that it rests on and a camera strap. Oh, and a flash. Almost forgot the flash. And my thermos. And that's all I need.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
NewEnglandPhotographer
Goldmember
2,343 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jan 04, 2014 09:54 |  #72

Woman wear makeup.


How is that different than photoshopping a person in a photo?


Canon 7D | 70-200mm f2.8is II L | 24-70mm f2.8 L | 50mm f1.8 | 28mm f1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jan 04, 2014 16:47 |  #73

grahamclarkphoto wrote in post #16549931 (external link)
I always think of the famous line from master landscape photographer Galen Rowell: "There's so much digital adding of stuff here and there that photographers may as well become painters." - Galen Rowell

true, many of the landscape 'photos' look like paintings
portraits are a little different but probably the same amount of time spent photoshopping




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aswald
Goldmember
1,162 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Oct 2013
Location: London, Paris, NY
     
Jan 04, 2014 22:38 |  #74

It's the reality of the world.

We add spices to our food, sugars to our drink, colors to our bodies....we want our fruits gmo-ed to taste sweeter and sweeter...

Photoshop is no different in photography.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RandyMN
Goldmember
3,131 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2005
     
Jan 04, 2014 22:44 |  #75

ewheeler20 wrote in post #16576841 (external link)
Woman wear makeup.


How is that different than photoshopping a person in a photo?

Makeup is simply enhancing reality while Photoshop is faking.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with good makeup and photoshop techniques, but haven't we all seen the overly done makeup? So don't be surprised when PS can also be overly done.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,017 views & 0 likes for this thread
Severly Photoshop'ed
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
1175 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.