Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fotoshop by Adobé  (Read 5254 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« on: January 12, 2012, 05:11:06 PM »
ReplyReply

How true
http://vimeo.com/34813864
Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5560



WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2012, 06:39:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Saw this a few days ago; I think it's a fine satire.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
rcloud
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2012, 09:41:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Really well done and apropos.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5715



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2012, 10:45:37 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a real hoot, especially when the gal says: "My face feels like plastic." But you can make a face look like plastic with a single click with "Portrait Professional 10" according to their ad. In fact, according to the ad in the latest "Digital Photo Pro" one click can eliminate any resemblance to actual human skin over an entire upper torso.
Logged

GRHazelton
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2012, 04:01:42 PM »
ReplyReply

A truly funny vid!

It raises some interesting "ethical" questions.  While image alteration has always been possible in photography, in wet work it was far more difficult.  At what point does minimal photoshopping - removing or minimizing blemishes, smoothing skin texture, for two examples - enter into what we might term dishonesty?  How many inches can be removed from hips and thighs?  I seem to remember a controversey over an National Geographic magazine cover in which a pyramid was moved to improve the composition.  Here was a clear alteration of "reality," and it could be compared to prior photos of the original scene.  With models how many unaltered images are available for comparison?  What is this process doing to the self-images of the millions of women and girls who find themselves unfavorably compared to  these icons?

When shooting landscapes and nature subjects how far should we go to improve the image?  Removing ugly power lines?  Adding better clouds? Adding the image of an insect to lend interest to an otherwise mundane picture of a flower?  Should pictures heavily photoshopped carry a disclaimer:  Caution! Things aren't always as they seem in this picture! or some such.  When does a photo cease to be a photo and becomes ... what?
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5715



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2012, 04:50:26 PM »
ReplyReply

A photograph never shows "reality," GR. Reality is infinite. A photograph is finite. The photographer always decides what to include and, even more importantly, what to leave out. The only time an accurate representation of a scene -- or, more precisely, part of a scene --  should be considered to be a reflection of anything like reality is when a photojournalist claims it's accurate. Are people concerned about "ethical" questions when they look at a painting by Gauguin? He included what he wanted to include, left out what he wanted to leave out, and invented what he wanted to invent. The idea that a photograph is different from what we all call a "picture" is an invention of the twentieth century.
Logged

shutterpup
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 487


« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2012, 06:16:23 PM »
ReplyReply

A photograph never shows "reality," GR. Reality is infinite. A photograph is finite. The photographer always decides what to include and, even more importantly, what to leave out. The only time an accurate representation of a scene -- or, more precisely, part of a scene --  should be considered to be a reflection of anything like reality is when a photojournalist claims it's accurate. Are people concerned about "ethical" questions when they look at a painting by Gauguin? He included what he wanted to include, left out what he wanted to leave out, and invented what he wanted to invent. The idea that a photograph is different from what we all call a "picture" is an invention of the twentieth century.

Well said, Russ.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4997



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2012, 06:45:27 PM »
ReplyReply

... Should pictures heavily photoshopped carry a disclaimer...

We are not far from that: "...feminist legislators in France, Britain and Norway... want digitally altered photos to be labeled. In June, the American Medical Association adopted a policy on body image and advertising that urged advertisers and others to "discourage the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image."

There is even an app for that ;-)
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2012, 03:29:58 AM »
ReplyReply

They don't understand it... It's not PS retouching, it's the Brand.

This Picture that everybody recognized has not been retouched by any means.



Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2012, 07:39:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Now...

Same unretouched image, but in a different support...
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2012, 07:40:45 AM »
ReplyReply

First image: he looks like a successfull man, a real playboy

Second image: he looks depressed and hill, not successfull, no playboy

It's really the same image.

Now he looks like a great investigator doesn't he?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 09:47:18 AM by fredjeang » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6897


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2012, 08:50:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Looks to me as a helpful doctor...

;-) Erik ;-)

Second image: he looks depressed and hill, not successfull, no playboy
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2012, 09:46:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Looks to me as a helpful doctor...

;-) Erik ;-)


It's true actually ! Good observation. If instead of "fighting the depression" the text would have been "when on deep dpression" or something similar it wouldn't have "looked" as the doctor but the victim.

My point was: no matter the retouching, you can't take an image out of a particular context that we associate with ideas. In other words, not only PS is fake, it is all fake.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 09:53:15 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4997



WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2012, 09:59:02 AM »
ReplyReply

... it is all fake.

Now that is depressing Wink 
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1707


« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2012, 01:11:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if banning extensive photoshop use would just serve to create even more unhealthy looking heroin chic models and more extensive and expensive make up sessions? The look is defined, once there the tools to achieve that look might change but I doubt legislation will be able to define a look.
Logged

caion5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2012, 04:19:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Its a video fun! Cheesy
PHotoshop and FOtoshop names hAUHAuA

Fotoshop Gratis
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2012, 03:34:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Just came across this thread - funny and well done video.

As for retouched model pix having a negative effect on the humans out there - give me a break! Have you seen the humans out there? They need all the retouching and mirror-gazing they can afford or do. Stand in any square in any town or city and the sights you see will make you wish that Reality-PS was available on the National Health in a handy size that fitted into the traditional shirt pocket.

And what makes it worse now, is that it starts with the very young looking like footballs, the very people/age group that should be full of vigour and bounce energy. Fortunately, there is still a small number of really good-looking young people around and the hope must be that the genes will be passed on. But hell, that was also the case before PS was a word anyone thought meant anything other than a camera shop. As for the models, they usually did look a bit better than the average girl, but the final result wasn't totally dependent on their looks alone: skills and projection of 'personality', real or assumed, made the difference between a successful model picture and the town studio's window display.

Anyway, that women/girls will feel 'threatened' by retouched models is open to question, and presupposes that these people are stupid enough to believe what the magazines show them. If the boys do, if they ever even see the magazines, then the laugh's on them if they buy into the nonsense: have they no mother, sister or cousin with whom to compare the 'product'? Of course, if the above relatives disappoint, then as in days gone by, they could take the traditional route and run away from home and join the circus, the scouts, the navy or some other such identity-smothering group. Either way, as with us all, they will just have to get used to it as it is.

Nanny State comes to mind. At least, that's my mood this morning; by evening I might think differently. I have the taste of lukewarm stewed tea in my mouth and that's my own fault for taking so long to type. Lukewarm... don't use that word very often in my week; I just accept the condition of the tea as normal for me or, at least, for the tea.

Rob C
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5067


« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2012, 10:09:19 AM »
ReplyReply

This video gets exactly at the fallacy of saying "appearences are faked with make-up anyway", because real people can also modify the way that they look "live" with make-up. In fact, that is often the point of the advertisements. (OK, real people can also "Fotoshop” their Facebook images, but people who confuse Facebook with a real social life have other problems.)

I propose that the "female image industry" be required to adopt a version of one of its own favorite techniques: publishing or at least linking to the "before" and "after" images. But in this case, meaning before and after digital manipulation.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 10:11:54 AM by BJL » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2012, 12:04:45 PM »
ReplyReply

This video gets exactly at the fallacy of saying "appearences are faked with make-up anyway", because real people can also modify the way that they look "live" with make-up. In fact, that is often the point of the advertisements. (OK, real people can also "Fotoshop” their Facebook images, but people who confuse Facebook with a real social life have other problems.)

I propose that the "female image industry" be required to adopt a version of one of its own favorite techniques: publishing or at least linking to the "before" and "after" images. But in this case, meaning before and after digital manipulation.




Imagine how impractical that would be in reality: double issues of every magazine?

Rob C
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5067


« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2012, 04:19:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Imagine how impractical that would be in reality: double issues of every magazine?
Get with modern tech: a QR code next to each image, delivering the "less unreal" image to your phone or computer. And slightly less flippantly, it would be easy to do with online advertising.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad