Davetrials Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Bascially im wrting an essay on the ethics of photographic retouching and manipulation on humans, im all for it i love, but i want to hear other peoples views on it?do u think its politically correct?are you for or agaisnt itdo u think its neccesary?and so on.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish-Finger-er Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Bascially im wrting an essay on the ethics of photographic retouching and manipulation on humans, im all for it i love, but i want to hear other peoples views on it?do u think its politically correct?are you for or agaisnt itdo u think its neccesary?and so on..To me it boils down to the type of photography as to whether its politically correct or notyou posting pics of you reenacting movie scenes for project365,which is just art, and their clearly photoshopped, is perfectly fine. likewise with those HDR cityscapes that dont really do an awful lot. however surely it becomes a different story when your ruining someones reputation with photos in a magazine or the like. there was a touched up photo of amy winehouse, making her out to be looking way worse than she was(if thats possible) in heat(i think it was heat anyway) the other week. to me thats wrong, but then i dont have a problem with them airbrushing out some girls mole, or giving them better nips, for nuts.but i cant say, to me its acceptable only if its done to someone like that in a positive way or with their permission. as with before and after photos (of wrinkle cream,bodybuilding supplements etc) often the photos are shot on the same day (with a bit of clever lighting, posing, getting the muscles pumped etc) and then finishing it off in photoshop. and their selling a product based on these images. theres a prime example, thats from a recent documentary on steroids, and that photo is the same person, shot on the same day, with make up and photoshop. If there selling baking flour, based on those images, its totally false, and wrong.and then im unsure on sports. to me stuff like this:is fine, although its heavily shopped, but i cant help but think, if i bought a sports dvd, due to posters of a guy seeming to drop 40 foot on his mototrials bike, or a rider doing a 65" sidehop (am i saying that right, "sidehop") only to find out it was shopped and the vid was tosh. likewise, ive never met, or rode with adam bessell, likewise, ive never seen an adam bessell video, yet if someone asked me how good he was, id say "well hes mint as fook like, aint he la" but for all i know, he could be a kid with stabilisers, whos spent all the hours id of expecting him to be riding trials practising, perfecting his skills on photoshop. So surely isnt that wrong, making something look better in photoshop is acceptable but only if it did happen.making something which didnt happen, look like the best thing in the world, isnt acceptable(unless its explained its a hoax), especially if its making people money due to the abilities, which they dont actually have.As for it being necessary, no its not necessary, but then its not really necessary to have the internet, photography, or beanie hats, but i still approve of all 3, same as i approve of photoshopping in certain circumstances. Edited October 15, 2008 by trials_punk182 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M-i-t-c-h Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 meh.People have been touching up in the darkroom since the start of.... well..... time!so when your writing dont just dwell on shop, think about film processing aswell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 meh.People have been touching up in the darkroom since the start of.... well..... time!so when your writing dont just dwell on shop, think about film processing aswell.the argument is about digital manipulation. not dark room process's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I think, that if it is on a human body shown for beauty or visual effect it should be an unaltered image. A little touch up here, and a little touch up there is lying to the potential viewer. Lets face it, you wouldn't buy a VW Golf with RX7 doors would you ? Filters, or obvious alterations (like legs for arms or colour changes like a purple face for example) can be cool. But editing out body imperfections and enhancing beast sizes/more vulgar areas to be more pleasing to the eye should be left true. Just my opinion, might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 What about the saying "no body wants to look at ugly people", its an awful saying but its pretty much true. All these women on magazine covers know full well there gonna be shopped to shit, and none of them seem to have a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish-Finger-er Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 What about the saying "no body wants to look at ugly people", its an awful saying but its pretty much true. All these women on magazine covers know full well there gonna be shopped to shit, and none of them seem to have a problem?yea, because, if someone approached me, and said, "do you want to be a mens health cover model, sure well get you pumped, and use some clever lighting, but youll look way more ripped than you do, due to make up and editing" i wouldnt really care, and i dont even give a toss about being famous, for people who want fame, or whatever,then they really wouldnt be bothered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 What about the saying "no body wants to look at ugly people", its an awful saying but its pretty much true. All these women on magazine covers know full well there gonna be shopped to shit, and none of them seem to have a problem?I personally prefer the "Wow, thats a real woman" look.Things have got to obvious now, and far to vulgar. The sort of person who appears in these magazines will generally be a slut. As apposed to, the really nice bird you met in the coffee shop the other day who stunned you with her ability to chat and be cool whilst having a great rack.Lets face it, nothing turns you on as much as the real thing. (because this is effectively what were talking about ?) So how many young lads are going though life not clued up what really counts because it's not what they've read in nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 I personally prefer the "Wow, thats a real woman" look.Things have got to obvious now, and far to vulgar. The sort of person who appears in these magazines will generally be a slut. As apposed to, the really nice bird you met in the coffee shop the other day who stunned you with her ability to chat and be cool whilst having a great rack.Lets face it, nothing turns you on as much as the real thing. (because this is effectively what were talking about ?) So how many young lads are going though life not clued up what really counts because it's not what they've read in nuts.Im on about vogue GQ, and what not , not nuts and zoo and so on.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Im on about vogue GQ, and what not , not nuts and zoo and so on..ahhh ok, well my views still stand but without the slut comments.A body is what it is, and I find focusing on the visual elements to be stupidly shallow.I'd live with a window licker, as long as they had nice tits.*And to add a bit more of your application to that, I think to tart up a body to make a customer think the product looks better is in my eyes, shameful.DISCLAIMER: This post may have been altered and does not necessarily represent the views of the original poster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beigemaster Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 What about the saying "no body wants to look at ugly people", its an awful saying but its pretty much true. All these women on magazine covers know full well there gonna be shopped to shit, and none of them seem to have a problem?True, but then look at the wider context. If women see the women on the covers then their whole idea of what true beauty is becomes completely destroyed and (I don't think this is sexist) women are more naturally insecure about there image and so feel inclined to fork out huge amounts of money on cosmetics to try and reach this so called "ideal image" which is impossible by it's own nature. I don't know if your essay needs to have a scope that wide but thats just what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davetrials Posted October 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Im far to shallow, and so are u by the look of ur bird, u obviosly found an attractive girl cos u were looking for one, theres plenty more nice, probly much nicer than anyone one ull ever meet fat birds out there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 (edited) Im far to shallow, and so are u by the look of ur bird, u obviosly found an attractive girl cos u were looking for one, theres plenty more nice, probly much nicer than anyone one ull ever meet fat birds out there?No, I picked my "bird" because I went to school with her and she's been a friend all my life. Fair enough I haven't seen her for a few years but she's still the same fun and energetic person the was when I went to school with her. And I felt romance the first time I met back up with her.In my experience the women you go for on looks will never last a relationship. My last partner was far from hot, but because of the fun times we had and the openness of out relationship and our bodies I managed to live with her for 2 years ! I'm much happier knowing that I'm with a person I love than someone I think looks great and will impress my mates. I thought you wanted my views on Photoshop ethics, not to have a dig at why I chose my girlfriend over other women ?*Edited to fix grammatical errors. Edited October 15, 2008 by Pashley26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogre Posted October 15, 2008 Report Share Posted October 15, 2008 Photoshoping is fine, untill you get into this kinda teritory and you get the classic self esteme issues. otherwise it's fine, unless it's false advertising like the scientist said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-Stop Junkie Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 It's also worth making a distinction between photographs used in (for example) news where it's expected to be an accurate depiction of real life, compared to editorial/adverting use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) Photoshopping in advertisements is wrong.You're not showing the true effects of what you're selling.It's effectively false advertisement.It's a bit more understandable to, for example, photoshop a person's face when they're modelling clothes. Edited October 16, 2008 by Revolver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 But making her cheekbones look better doesn't change the dress prada is selling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 But making her cheekbones look better doesn't change the dress prada is selling...Exactly.It's not directly lying to sell more clothes.If you smoothed someone's skin in PS to sell an anti-ageing cream, then you are directly lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 which is why they don't, they use phillipino boys instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'd live with a window licker, as long as they had nice tits.What a truly awful thing to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doopdoopbedoop Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 What a truly awful thing to say kudos to the editor of that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pashley26 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) HAHA.Whoever Edited that gets HUGE kudos.Thats f**king epic !who did edit it ? Edited October 16, 2008 by Pashley26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew62 Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 All these women on magazine covers know full well there gonna be shopped to shit, and none of them seem to have a problem?Completely wrong!!! If you're going to write an essay on it you need to research the issue a lot more if these are your initial thoughts!Sure they still subscribe to being on the magazine covers...but the issue is not black and white. Be subjective, you cant just say they dont have a problem. If you lok in to the issue for even 10 minutes you'll know what you said is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simpson Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 when talking about cover girls and stuff i think photoshopping is wrong, i won't go into it all but in psycology it can majorly affect bulima and anorexia in young people. if your really bothered look up the study of the media's introduction to figi.personally i think imperfections make perfection, its the little kwerks about a girls body which i like, an to see them air brushed out is a shame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egg Fried Rice Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 Bascially im wrting an essay on the ethics of photographic retouching and manipulation on humans, im all for it i love, but i want to hear other peoples views on it?do u think its politically correct?are you for or agaisnt itdo u think its neccesary?and so on..OOOOO there was a programme all about this with alesha dixon from Mis-teeq and she had interview with loads of magazine companies, that would of been such a big help for you! Cant remember what channel but you hopefully you can watch it on bbc iplayer or channel 4 online Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.