'Photoshopped': Just another word for phony

[Jim Bryant]

How true............. Editorial and Sports...NO, NO, NO NO NO! But these days folks are so vain and just wanna look good...forever.

Originally Posted by beatles2

Allow me to be the devils' advocate for a moment. Your hired by Redbook to shoot the cover, you're done the shoot and looking over the shots with the chief editor( the person who is signing the cheque) and She or He says I love that shot. Now I need you to change that,that that and that. So what do you do?????

I myself dont get upset I just have to chuckle that at that level it is done so bad. More time than not its done and you never you would never know. I do it all the time,be it skin smoothing or removing a blemish on the face. The last wedding I did the bride asked me to do just that.

But when it comes to landscape, news or sports photography I agree it should be left alone.

[beatles2]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

How true............. Editorial and Sports...NO, NO, NO NO NO! But these days folks are so vain and just wanna look good...forever.

Yes sir to me that is a major taboo. Shame to any body to who would do that.

[Dodge]

My turn to play Devils advocate

Why is it ok to change Obama's boxer shorts from black to red, but unacceptable to change the color of the Derby winner from black to brown? Likewise, why is it acceptable to give Demi Moore perky boobs and a tight butt, yet unacceptable to do the same to a tribal woman in New Guinea?

In other words, why is it acceptable to decieve the readers of Cosmo and Redbook, yet unacceptable to decieve the readers of Sporting Illustrated and National Geographic? Why is one part of society deemed more entitled to accuracy than another?

I can accept that certain subject matter may be deemed more important than another, but then surely that is down to personal perspective. A young girl may destroy her life in an attempt to emulate the catwalk, glossy cover models, yet to her it matters not a jot who scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl. Why is it widely acceptable to manipulate the images that matter to her, but not those that matter to sports fans?

Now there's a discussion (I really have way too much free time on my hands tonight).

[windrider86]

Thank you for the tutorial on WHAT NOT DO!!!

Those are horrid by the way

Dont get me wrong, I am all ofr touching up a pimple, smoothing out some skin tone, reducing a slight bulge here and there, but all in all the portrait should remain for the most part, natural looking. Wrinkles can be slighty reduced but not removed. But waste lines the size of a #2 pencil is too too much

[Jim Bryant]

You know....both magazines or most magazines have done that to a certain extent and gotten caught. I don't think it's the editors or photographers fault, but some young graphic artist would, not trained in editorial journalism makes a stupid decision. I wouldn't say that the Sport Illustrated Swim Suit issue's models and their locations are not slightly touched up, but National Geographic sure learned their lesson by moving the Pyramids closer together. But there are ethics involving image manipulations when it comes Editorial Journalism, sports and documentary photography are just that, truthful reportage....... But as you know there have been journalistic editorial photographers who have been fired for altering their images. It's all about the truth. As for the SI Swimsuit issue.............it's all about beautiful women. And you're right...........I should be beating the bushes for clients, but too close to the New Years. One of my resolutions I guess.....to get more aggressive in marketing myself. Ha........as if I'm not a photowhore enough already

Originally Posted by Dodge

My turn to play Devils advocate

Why is it ok to change Obama's boxer shorts from black to red, but unacceptable to change the color of the Derby winner from black to brown? Likewise, why is it acceptable to give Demi Moore perky boobs and a tight butt, yet unacceptable to do the same to a tribal woman in New Guinea?

In other words, why is it acceptable to decieve the readers of Cosmo and Redbook, yet unacceptable to decieve the readers of Sporting Illustrated and National Geographic? Why is one part of society deemed more entitled to accuracy than another?

I can accept that certain subject matter may be deemed more important than another, but then surely that is down to personal perspective. A young girl may destroy her life in an attempt to emulate the catwalk, glossy cover models, yet to her it matters not a jot who scored the winning touchdown in the superbowl. Why is it widely acceptable to manipulate the images that matter to her, but not those that matter to sports fans?

Now there's a discussion (I really have way too much free time on my hands tonight).

[beatles2]

Fact and fantasy and expectations. When I look at the Cover page in the Calgary Herald I expect the photo to be factual shot of what I am looking at. Vogue is mostly fantasy. And there is a pile a grey in the middle like people magazine.

[Big Nick]

The thing is that regardless of how a photographer feels about editing different types of media, photoshoped magazines sell. In a lot of cases even more so after they get busted making these horrid edits

So unless the public lashes out and says look at what this is doing to our girls, what happened to the truths and asks all of the other questions that are raised by these practices it really don't matter right or wrong because the bottom line is their bottom line.

All you can do as a photographer is stick to your guns and maybe educate some other people about these issues and why its wrong. But this is the world we live in and unfortunately controversy and unrealistic expectations sell.

[Jim Bryant]

How true.......as for myself.....I only work in curves, some color saturation, color balance and a wee bit of sharpening, burning and dodging. I don't even think about changing the HDR to a photo.

[Big Nick]

Once in a while ill go out to just shoot random stuff with the intent of playing with HDR or photoshop. But normally I take a pic and then if I make a small mistake ill just edit it to make it look more like the scene I was shooting but I see nothing wrong with heavy edits or HDR for the sake of art or fun. I do feel that's where it should stay thou.