|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Sex, Lies and Photoshop
Should magazines let readers know if images have been retouched. interesting video. and the NT times fashion & style story is a good read. check it out. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashi … gewanted=1 May 28 09 12:39 pm Link Interesting read. Thanks for posting! May 28 09 12:48 pm Link How about magazines let readers know when images are NOT retouched, since that is far more uncommon. I assume that anything I see has been altered from the in-camera results, just like I assume anything I read has been edited from the original story. May 28 09 01:22 pm Link Meh. Photos have been manipulated since the mid-1800s. Those whining about it as a new trend simply haven't been paying attention. May 28 09 01:28 pm Link What I've been noticing as of late is the INCLUSION of the retoucher in the credits which is a great thing (however, like most people, that wasn't the OP's question)... Naw, I don't think they should... What difference would it make? It appears as if the photographer is LESS a photographer if his photo is Pshopped. May 28 09 01:47 pm Link Dallas J. Logan wrote: often that is in place of monetary payment, and not a good thing. When a photographer pays for a retoucher, they often do not include the post work credit, same often applies if a magazine pays for retouching work. May 28 09 01:50 pm Link I think it's fairly common knowledge today that images used in publishing are retouched one way or another. to be fair though nowadays there are just as many papparazzi mags out on shelves that have unedited images of celebs in so i think it's all about whether or not you are fooled by advertising / editorial pics. It's a fair story but i feel it's one of 2 sides. (shouldn't feel obliged to let them know) 1. A model is hired as a base or blank canvas so the photographer, mua, magazine, ad agency etc, can portray a certain look or sell a certain brand. I think that extended retouching for the purpose of achieving your desired image or advert in this case is totally fine. (should feel obliged to notify) 2. Retouching of a celebrity image featured in mag serves only to mislead the reader by portraying the celeb as flawless, aslong as celebs like Kate Winslet, Beyonce Knowles etc continue to bring it to the attention of the media when it's an image of them that has been destructively edited from their actual likness then all is good. May 28 09 01:55 pm Link I think the irony is that the NY Times is the one posting this... Maybe they (the NY Times) should tell you when they fake images &/or plagiarize stories (whenever they do it, not just when they get caught)... Paul May 28 09 03:56 pm Link Well then define "retouched", levels, saturation and basic file "develop" things or true photo manipulation, like making a plane look as if it's firing a missile etc? May 28 09 04:05 pm Link simple..if its printed its manipulated.... May 28 09 04:07 pm Link I kinda agree with the fact that we should put the retoucher's name in the credits LOL May 28 09 05:09 pm Link Why stop here? I want them to notify me in every movie scene that they use a stunt double or CGI. Just a little disclaimer in the corner saying something like "That's not Tom Cruise". It wouldn't mess up the illusion that much... Really.... None of this crap is real people! Give me a damn break. All there people blaming their insecurities on a computer program. Just stop already... May 28 09 06:35 pm Link Of course they should put disclaimers on. It is only general knowledge that images in magazines and the like are edited in the world that creates those images. Without a rider stating that this image has been manipulated then it is tantamount to fraud ( i say this only if the image is designed to entice us to buy that item.) Based on some of the logic i have read in this discussion i should be able to book a model that i see in an advertisement and expect her to turn up looking like she does in the advert. But no wait her neck isnt that long or her hair, or in fact her eyes are a different shape and what about that mouth did the collagen fall out cause your lips dont look anything like that. But that's ok all is fair and everyone reading the mags should know ( magically somehow exactly what post processing has taken place). I continually get new models for portfolio shoots who are extremely hard on themselves because they don't look like so and so in the whatchya ma callit magazine. It seems to make them feel better when i explain that it has been manipulated. So yes without question there should be warnings saying this model has been considerably modified in post processing and you will never ever look like her in real life, in fact she doesnt look like her in real life. May 28 09 07:10 pm Link hhmmm... I think it would be nice if they posted which images haven't been retouched ha ha.. I'm sure it would be a very short list!! May 28 09 07:13 pm Link its all art people ...its all art. get over it and eat a biscuit ;o) or two May 28 09 07:30 pm Link I think it would be great to put in the retouchers name, especially if they're already listing credit to photographers, mup, stylists etc. May 29 09 06:32 am Link DigitalEdge Photography wrote: My issue isnt so much about when its clearly "art" or "fiction", like in a movie. But more when its done in regards to actuall news. May 29 09 07:45 am Link A news picture should not be altered. It would then become an illustration, therefore commentary and not straight news. May 29 09 07:52 am Link I Love that it is coming to this. What is Reality? Over the years, "retouching" was done by illustrators, and they were paid well. Magazine covers, and Movie posters (I've done many of the two) have always been retouched. Most Movie posters with "stars" in them, are shot with body doubles, and the heads, are dropped in, after the Studio (Warner/Paramount/Fox) have essentially destroyed the original art. Cheap digital "retouching" is like cheap photography....you get what you pay for, and the work that I am most proud of, is work that hasn't been retouched whatsoever. Also film images, that were originated on film. They are going up in value every day, as digital images (originated) tend to decline in value. I do some digital tweaking (color correction, etc), but leave retouching to the pros, who are fewer, and fewer, since clients think their IT guy can do it! Some clients are still opting to originate on film!!!! Film isn't coming back, just sticking around for awhile. Go to Photo School? You stil today have to learn film. May 29 09 08:09 am Link DigitalEdge Photography wrote: That's the scary thing about what the French are proposing which effectively says that photographers can not be artists, only journalists if they want work to be in a magazine. May 30 09 01:53 pm Link Gibson Photo Art wrote: I couldn't agree more! +1 May 30 09 01:58 pm Link The magazines should not have to inform readers of anything they don't want to inform readers of. The shouldn't feel obligated. The government could mandate it and regulate it, but they are kinda busy running banks and car companies. Dove, seems to be on an anti-Photoshop kick with their natural beauty crap, but even they talk only about their "One quarter cleansing cream"...what about the other 3/4ths? Nah, I think the world is better off letting people think that models are more beautiful than they really are. Do we as a society really want to have our dreams filled with zits and wrinkles? Jun 02 09 12:59 am Link Melissa Little wrote: I agree, if everyone else is being credited the retoucher should be too. Most of the time only the photographer and designers are credited though. Jun 02 09 03:50 am Link Gibson Photo Art wrote: Please don't ask them to stop, if they do, I won't have anything to laugh at when I bring my iPhone with me to the toilet. These guys and their opinions make me laugh so hard, that I find they work much better than laxitives. Jun 02 09 05:08 am Link And Madonna still looks 21. Jun 02 09 06:49 am Link StephenEastwood wrote: Good to know. Jun 02 09 08:02 am Link In an editorial, if the name of the retoucher is in the credits, it is most likely because the retoucher accepted that in lieu of monetary payment. Jun 02 09 11:32 am Link No, that spoils the illusion. The graphic designer does deserve his credit but magazines should not have to make an added effort to bring the edited work to the readers attention. People should generally understand that anything being sold or put on display for the public is edited by someone, and this holds true for all forms of media; art, photography, literature, music, and film. Jun 03 09 11:34 pm Link |
