The camera never lies?

[Ian]

There was quite an interesting item on breakfast TV this morning that I only had half my eye on, unfortunately. It was about the, now, routine use of digital photo manipulation to enhance the looks of even professional models for advertising campaigns.

Naturally there are a lot of concerns that activities like this put even more unhealthy pressures on young (actually, older too!) people to look 'perfect'.

Where do you draw the line? Red-eye reduction and blemish removal seem fine to me. I have whitened teeth in portraits and ironed over some crows' feet too, but the techniques this programme discussed could almost have been mistaken for an item about serious cosmetic surgery...

What do you think?

Ian

[lumix]

Re: The camera never lies?

There was quite an interesting item on breakfast TV this morning that I only had half my eye on, unfortunately. It was about the, now, routine use of digital photo manipulation to enhance the looks of even professional models for advertising campaigns.

Naturally there are a lot of concerns that activities like this put even more unhealthy pressures on young (actually, older too!) people to look 'perfect'.

Where do you draw the line? Red-eye reduction and blemish removal seem fine to me. I have whitened teeth in portraits and ironed over some crows' feet too, but the techniques this programme discussed could almost have been mistaken for an item about serious cosmetic surgery...

What do you think?

Ian

I never got to see the program. Morning TV, what's that? never out of bed in time for that. Things have not changed only the method. For years it was layer upon layer of makeup, and a good makeup artist knew what colour to apply to suite the sensitivity of the film that was to be used. In them days a model could look like an oil painting but photograph really well. Now it seems no makeup is required, only Photoshop and someone skilled enough to use it. I think even some of the old camera and lighting skills have gone by the board as almost anything can be achieved with software. The end result is the same. Beautiful models that most women would give their right arm for to look similar. The pressure/desire has always been there and that will continue to be so.

[Ian]

Re: The camera never lies?

Ron, it goes much further than complexion and cosmetics - Photoshop wizards are routinely making models (not 'ordinary' mis-shapen people like a lot of us ) slimmer, taller, fuller here and more slender there, etc. A before and after was shown and the transformation was quite fundamental.

Ian

[lumix]

Re: The camera never lies?

Ron, it goes much further than complexion and cosmetics - Photoshop wizards are routinely making models (not 'ordinary' mis-shapen people like a lot of us ) slimmer, taller, fuller here and more slender there, etc. A before and after was shown and the transformation was quite fundamental.

Ian

There is a web site some where that shows loads of models reshaped etc. If I find it again I'll post a link. Strange that you point out the "taller, slimmer" what about Hitler, he would only allow photographers to photograph him from knee height looking up so that he looked tall and slim. Like I say not much has changed only the method.

[peter]

Re: The camera never lies?

Have a look at this site. I think that you can forget that line about the camera never lies, maybe before photoshop but not now.

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini4.html

[Ian]

Re: The camera never lies?

Great find, Peter - that site illustrates things perfectly. The guy is clearly very talented at photo manipulation and I take my hat off to him; he also shows off some other aspects to his skills.

My only niggle is that the 'perfected' versions of the bodies he has worked on look almost like CGI'd (computer-generated) figures.

Ian

[lumix]

Re: The camera never lies?

Well done peter that's the site I was referring to. I hope the dating agencies don't use the same technique, there will be lots of disappointed people when they meet.

[tarzieboy]

Re: The camera never lies?

amazing image transformations in apodaca, but the models face was overdone in my estimation, looked false

[Pops]

Re: The camera never lies?

Great find, Peter - that site illustrates things perfectly. The guy is clearly very talented at photo manipulation and I take my hat off to him; he also shows off some other aspects to his skills.

My only niggle is that the 'perfected' versions of the bodies he has worked on look almost like CGI'd (computer-generated) figures.

Ian

Had a bash at something similar some time ago. I got bored after a while, messed up on the left arm and gave in. Might give it another go now the subject has been planted again.

[Patrick]

Re: The camera never lies?

Have a look at this site. I think that you can forget that line about the camera never lies, maybe before photoshop but not now.

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/dig...i/bikini4.html

The camera or rather the photographer has been telling photo lies ever since Fox Talbot.
Look at the 30-40 Hollywood portraits of the famous stars. 10x8 paper negatives and a retouch pencil and anything could be done.
George Hurrell, Laszlo Willinger, and my particular favourite Clarence Sinclair Bull, were some of the glamour masters working for the big Hollywood studios. Not forgetting post war our own Cecil Beaton.

Whoever first said the camera never lies was a photographer telling lies.

As mater of interest the techniques shown on the link Peter posted are very simple to do, I have posted many a picture on this forum with just such methods. What Photoshop and other programs of the same type have done is bring these skills to the masses


Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: The camera never lies?

amazing image transformations in apodaca, but the models face was overdone in my estimation, looked false

They all look false, can't abide plasticky looking skins

[Bearface]

Re: The camera never lies?

My personal take on what is acceptable:

Poorly executed post-processing is never a good thing. Blurred, over-cloned skin with no texture is not the same thing as beautifully-cloned skin with plenty of retained texture and detail. Some make-up adverts cross the line in my opinion, but in the main the worst stuff is what I see on photography websites, such as P*o*o*i*. Appalling.

In my own portrait work I like to play with the tones and the contrast to add a little drama or mood to a given shot, but beyond some cautious cloning, I don't want to fundamentally change the appearance of my subjects. The lengthening of a model's legs is perfectly acceptable, but it's something which needs to be done well, while remaining sympathetic to the context or mood of the image. I'll admit to having done it on a few occasions

In lifestyle / beauty / fashion advertising etc, I expect to see flawlessness and the photographer's idea of perfection, just as I expect to see an unfeasibly shiny Ford Mondeo (with dark glass and shimmering wet-look tyres) in the latest Mondeo adverts, or an iPod with no fingerprints on the chrome surfaces and a clinical white room for it to languish within. The whole point of these things is to create in our minds the idea that we're buying into something slightly beyond our reach, and however cynical or perceptive we are as individuals, we all like to fantasise a bit. It's powerful psychology, but it doesn't hurt us. What hurts us is when the media makes it into an issue and people start believing the nonsense before willingly jumping on the victim bandwagon. I'm never going to be Brad Pitt, but do I care if an airbrushed version of him is used to promote the products or lifestyle that I might aspire to? Erm......not really, no

As Patrick has already said, the manipulation of images to create what is intended to be perceived as "perfection" is something which has been practiced for almost as long as photography has existed. In fashion and beauty photography, flawless skin, unnaturally large eyes, pinched waistlines and unfeasibly long legs are contrived - often to surreal levels - in order to project the idea that use of the related products (be they clothes, accessories, make up etc...) will similarly endow the prospective purchaser, despite the fact that most reasonably intelligent people know full well from the outset that it's all nonsense.

The funny thing is, if or when these unrealistic aspirations do become a problem, we can't ignore the fact that they are generated by quite a wide raange of things, from the monsters that are media and advertising through to social/peer-group/sibling pressures etc. I personally see no real justification for singling out photography per se as being responsible for such things, but then I'm also assuming that most people know the difference between an acheivable goal and one which can only be realised via strong drugs and hypnosis...

[Ian]

Re: The camera never lies?

I think the main concern of the programme on TV this morning was that it was bad enough that exceptionally slim and pretty models were being used in advertising, but that even these examples of human 'perfection' were being altered after the shoot. The bottom line was that this was placing even more pressure on young (and not so young!) women to conform to an unrealistic image, resulting in some cases in a lot of stress and even serious illness.

But then our modern society is full of fashion contradictions. We all moan about society's obesession about b-list celebrities and yet the media is over-worked to satiate the feeding frenzy of demand that the public exhibits for celeb gossip and drama.

In various periods of European history the fuller female figure has been more fashionable.

As you say, I don't think that photographers are to blame, they only do what the client asks for - and this comes from further up the food chain. Indeed, I'll bet that a lot of the doctoring of pictures is done not be the photgraphers who produced these images, but others along the production line.

I'm no slave to fashion, personally! Thank goodness. I kind of worried that my two daughters might not be so immune (worried both for my wallet's health as well as their personal health!)

Ian

[Danny Chau]

Re: The camera never lies?

Hasn't it occurred to you that woman wear makeup doing just that, to make themselves to look better or younger than their age? I say this is a new found freedom and power (playing God) that we never had before, thanks to digital imaging and photo manipulation softwares .

We all lie to ourselves and others everyday (with good intentions of course), so why not in a photograph.

Danny

[Bearface]

Re: The camera never lies?

I think the main concern of the programme on TV this morning was that it was bad enough that exceptionally slim and pretty models were being used in advertising, but that even these examples of human 'perfection' were being altered after the shoot. The bottom line was that this was placing even more pressure on young (and not so young!) women to conform to an unrealistic image, resulting in some cases in a lot of stress and even serious illness.

The thing is, while I accept that insecurity and low self-esteem is widespread and can cause illness in many cases, I don't accept that the projection of what many condemn as unrealistic body images (in the media and advertising) should be cited as the root cause. Advertising (Dove adverts excluded...) is all about fantasy and aspiration and it always has been. Modern society seems to have enveloped itself in what is often described as a culture of blame and frankly I find it all a bit pathetic. As for the pressure to conform to an ideal that many are allegedly under.................well I'm afraid that many of these people are pointing their fingers of blame in the wrong direction.

But then our modern society is full of fashion contradictions. We all moan about society's obesession about b-list celebrities and yet the media is over-worked to satiate the feeding frenzy of demand that the public exhibits for celeb gossip and drama.

Don't get me started on this one, please...

Suffice to say, modern society is prone to the full gamut of contradictions. Today, we like to moan about anything which doesn't suit us and indeed we like to blame outside factors for all the things we can't be bothered addressing for ourselves. That is until those outside factors serve some purpose, at which point we embrace them like old friends and ignore what was previously a threat to our very existences. Hilarious...

In various periods of European history the fuller female figure has been more fashionable.

Sure, and in some cultures it remains so. I was actually just thinking about the Dove adverts I mentioned earlier and I wondered how long it'll be before the skinny, unusually beautiful women among us start to complain about the unrealistic body images such campaigns promote.........how they feel unable to conform to the size 16+, average-looking, happy women stereotypes that the Dove adverts feature. It sounds crazy, but........

As you say, I don't think that photographers are to blame, they only do what the client asks for - and this comes from further up the food chain. Indeed, I'll bet that a lot of the doctoring of pictures is done not be the photgraphers who produced these images, but others along the production line.

Well as I've said, I don't think anyone in the food-chain you referred to is to blame as such for people's personal issues or inadequacies. If individuals put themselves under pressure to conform to what they perceive to be standards set in advertising and the media, then they're being badly let down by their families, friends and individual cultures. Being a fashion victim is one thing, but anyone who fully subscribes to the surreal body images and unattainable lifestyles projected at us through certain media should be taking a look at themselves instead of looking beyond for someone or something to blame.

I'm no slave to fashion, personally! Thank goodness. I kind of worried that my two daughters might not be so immune (worried both for my wallet's health as well as their personal health!)

Hopefully your daughters are happy and confident in their own skins, although I don't believe there's a healthy girl or young woman in existence who isn't something of a victim to fashion. Like you, I have two daughters (aged 8 and 14) and although I've tried to keep them grounded and realistic, I'm pretty sure that both my wallet and heart will take a pounding in the years to come