Severly Photoshop'ed

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16438228
Some deranged individual may say they've been affected by Picasso paintings.

Fortunately, there are professionals who will listen and offer qualified help to those individuals, and track what's going on. I have sympathy for them.

But I'm going to be against a PR campaign to ban abstract art from public eye and I'll point out that such PR campaigns are moronic.

Am I being clear in my analogy?

And in nations with severe prevalence of obesity, where metabolic syndrome is the major cause of death, body image issues should be dealt with by means other than just banning images of beauty ideals from media.

I certainly appreciate you coming out and saying where you stand.

Best of luck with that.

What I learned over the years is that digital manipulation is a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" type deal.


No fun allowed.

I guess this means that he didn't get paid for it and CNN is freely using it for their benefit. Nice video and sound coordination of the background music.

karentbal wrote in post #16444495
I guess this means that he didn't get paid for it and CNN is freely using it for their benefit. Nice video and sound coordination of the background music.

They are getting paid plenty. You think these news shows are making them foot the bill for flights and interviews? You think mulitiple millions of hits on YouTube equate to zero? No need to worry, they are getting paid.

Using a media such as photography to create a piece of art that exaggerates some or all of the female form is old news (Venus Figurines from 35,000 years ago). Now using "Photoshopped" images as a documentary or news piece is obviously unethical, I don't think so for your work to clients or for magazines. Even it it was used for a news source a simple tag line that says "photo illustration" is all that is needed.

Why is no one discussing the use of makeup and hair styling or clothes to make someone look more or less attractive? What about "Photoshopping" video footage which is more easily obtainable than ever (Lady Gaga's Bad Romance video is an easy example)?

Excessive PS'ing in advertisement is the problem. Do what you want with abstract art, but me having a sister that was anorexic mostly due to the unrealistic expectations from her body (she was 15, modelling) and psychological pressure to be like the women advertised, I will always say HAVE LIMITS. Too much photoshop should be treated as false advertisement.

I think it's unrealistic when people ask me to work miracles with their photos. I don't think educating people on what is going on is bad. However there are always those that make it sound like it's the root of all problems and refuse to take any personal responsibility, for themselves or their children.
It's a tool that is used.

you know the saying : “ too much is not good”? That's what it is. It's over rated!!

betway jogos cassino

palaima wrote in post #16448492
Excessive PS'ing in advertisement is the problem. Do what you want with abstract art, but me having a sister that was anorexic mostly due to the unrealistic expectations from her body (she was 15, modelling) and psychological pressure to be like the women advertised, I will always say HAVE LIMITS. Too much photoshop should be treated as false advertisement.

Define "too much." Also, it is not false advertizing unless the ad is presenting the photoshopped image as something the advertized product can achieve (unless, of course, the product is Photoshop itself!).

Besides, wouldn't the widespread practice of using Photoshop to create the ad agency's "ideal" person mean the actual human model does not need to represent that ideal? IOW, wouldn't this practice reduce pressure on the models to maintain a specific body type rather than increase it?

I doubt it works like that. Having heard way too many times from women on how "smooth her skin is" or "How slim she looks!" on images that are obviously altered creates an unreasonable ideal person which can't be achieved. This is what leads to later perfection seeking by altering their diet and often ending up in disorders like anorexia/bulimia or often so very sad plastic surgery to get bigger jugs or reshape their faces.

And why should models would not be expected to maintain a specific body shape - in this case a fit and healthy woman? It is their job, for which they get paid.

Wording a definition of too much is beyond me at the moment of writing, but there are, however, numerous examples online of over photoshopping. The case of false advertisement i perfectly understand and it has been done quite recently on some product (was it Julia Roberts?). Sadly, just walking through a perfume hall in Harrods there are far more examples of these funny looking people that are a bit over photoshopped. All in all i understand it is an important tool in photography, but i go by the rule of "If you can't say it was retouched, that is very good retouching".

Not sure if this makes sense, my sisters baby has been destroying my brain all day

palaima wrote in post #16451342
I doubt it works like that. Having heard way too many times from women on how "smooth her skin is" or "How slim she looks!" on images that are obviously altered creates an unreasonable ideal person which can't be achieved. This is what leads to later perfection seeking by altering their diet and often ending up in disorders like anorexia/bulimia or often so very sad plastic surgery to get bigger jugs or reshape their faces.

Who are you to stand between a businesswoman wanting to get bigger jugs to be more marketable?

Women have power to make choices about their lives. Some choose to use just looks to get what they want instead of investing in professional development and that choice should be respected. By being judgemental and not accepting their agency to make choices you undermine their independence and freedom.

I am no one and I am not standing, am I now? Women for all I care can do whatever they want. The question I am addressing is not whether they have the right to do it. It is the higher question of why they choose to do it in the first place.

I don't really think this forum is for a discussion of human evolutionary psychology going berserk in the modern age of perfection. But if you wish to, might as well

palaima wrote in post #16451938
I don't really think this forum is for a discussion of human evolutionary psychology going berserk in the modern age of perfection. But if you wish to, might as well

I think this forum is THE PRIME example of evopsych going berserk for perfection.

All the pixel peeping and compulsive gear accumulation that goes on here... Pekka should put in a disclaimer about addictive nature of it all.

If evopsych is openly talked about on this forum, canon will lose half its sales in a day.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16452038
I think this forum is THE PRIME example of evopsych going berserk for perfection.

All the pixel peeping and compulsive gear accumulation that goes on here... Pekka should put in a disclaimer about addictive nature of it all.

If evopsych is openly talked about on this forum, canon will lose half its sales in a day.

hahaha well put!

This isn't exactly a new thing. stuff like this has been going on long before photoshop. Heck drawings of models with exaggerated features has been going on since ads were illustrated with pencil and paper.

I guess i have a hard time letting this get me riled up enough to grab the pitchforks and light the torches.