Forums > General Industry > Fake photoshop photos, knowing somone personally

Model

Stephannie_Lynn

Posts: 4

Lindenhurst, Illinois, US

So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

Jan 10 13 08:01 pm Link

Model

Sabine Luise

Posts: 890

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Hmmm, I have some photos photoshopped and some that aren't. I clearly state so on my profile. Most use photoshop as an art. Everything in the magazines or advertisements are chopped or added on. I am not sure that is going to stop either. It has been happening for decades. Some models will even post a Polaroids of themselves on their profile to avoid any confusion; so it isn't false advertisement.

Jan 10 13 08:08 pm Link

Photographer

Promotional Genius

Posts: 11

New York, New York, US

They are photo shopping the men vigorously, giving them Hercules, Popeye muscles through "liquify" and other techniques - (drastic change) - then they make them more vascular with "highlights and shadows"(this I don't mind, I have used it, does not make a fake body)......Here is the kicker - the endowment.  They are making them bigger, thicker.....For a photographer such as myself who does NUDE WORK this factors in and it is MISLEADING.  You judge a nude model by all his assets, you make him an offer based on how he looks - including the endowment.  I use photo shop but not this way, I do lighting & colors, I do not change the body to something it is not.

Jan 10 13 08:16 pm Link

Photographer

LittleWhiteRabbit Photo

Posts: 134

Columbus, Ohio, US

Even drop dead gorgeous agency models are Photoshopped for magazines like Vogue.   Fashion/glamour photography is focused on creating pleasing images vs. accurate portraits of the model.  You will not find one published image that hasn't had some degree of retouching.

If the photoshopping is taking scads of pounds off the model then it's up to them to deal with this in their profile so that photographers contacting them have an accurate understanding of their actual appearance.

Jan 10 13 08:18 pm Link

Photographer

Awesome Headshots

Posts: 2369

San Ramon, California, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

popcorn

Jan 10 13 08:23 pm Link

Photographer

Images Maker

Posts: 725

Salinas, California, US

Back in the film days, the models has to be more perfect and there is no photo shop to make them look better. Only make-up artist and the photographer has to be better or know how to make them look better. But today we have photo shop, if you go to youtube, you could see what everyone could do. I have seen a 200 lbs girl, turn into a very hot 100 lbs girl. The world of glamour photography has change a lot and any photographer know photo shop has the edge.

Jan 10 13 08:30 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 17882

Downers Grove, Illinois, US

Images Maker wrote:
Back in the film days, the models has to be more perfect and there is no photo shop to make them look better. Only make-up artist and the photographer has to be better or know how to make them look better. But today we have photo shop, if you go to youtube, you could see what everyone could do. I have seen a 200 lbs girl, turn into a very hot 100 lbs girl. The world of glamour photography has change a lot and any photographer know photo shop has the edge.

Actually, in the past there were photo retouchers who retouched the print and sometimes even the neg. I had a shot I did about 25 years ago in which a model had a flower in her hair. I loved the photo but hated the flower, so I had a retoucher remove the flower from her hair. Even on close inspection you couldn't tell the difference.

Retouching was very prominent in film photography - it was just done by hand, not digitally.

Jan 10 13 08:50 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 17882

Downers Grove, Illinois, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

I don't see how it would be "false advertising," when retouching is a major part of advertising.

Not sure who you think you would report that to...

Or why...

Jan 10 13 08:52 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11896

Olivet, Michigan, US

If you "know them personally" you should report it to Facebook.  That's really important to them.

Jan 10 13 08:54 pm Link

Photographer

robert b mitchell

Posts: 1628

Surrey, British Columbia, Canada

I help my llamas with the photo shop as most of them do need some work. Many times camera angles will distort and that needs to be corrected.
Its the over photo shopped images that can be sooooo obvious. Those llamas I stay away from as I do not know what i will be shooting. Been fooled a couple of times though I must admit.

Jan 10 13 09:00 pm Link

Photographer

Top Gun Digital

Posts: 1282

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

I hear what you're saying as I have had a couple of models show up that looked nothing like their images.  The easiest thing to do is to just send them home.  If someone has completely misrepresented themselves I see no reason not to cancel the shoot.

Jan 10 13 09:02 pm Link

Photographer

Cal

Posts: 724

Santa Ana, California, US

Isn't this in the wrong forum???????

hmm

Jan 10 13 09:15 pm Link

Photographer

Photos 4 The Memories

Posts: 1292

Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US

Awesome Headshots wrote:

popcorn

And I raise you
http://www.modernmuscleforum.com/images/smilies/munchstretchcouch2.gif

Jan 10 13 10:02 pm Link

Photographer

Garry k

Posts: 27468

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2012/08/lady_gaga_vogue_cover_photoshop.jpg

assume you are not talking bout her

Jan 10 13 10:05 pm Link

Photographer

Chuckarelei

Posts: 9633

Seattle, Washington, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

Report?

Have you ever seen an actual Big Mac like this at Macdonald's?
http://cdn.nhl.com/blues/images/upload/2010/10/bigmac_newmlogo.jpg

Jan 10 13 10:10 pm Link

Photographer

M A R C P H O T O

Posts: 262

Mission Hills, California, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
Actually, in the past there were photo retouchers who retouched the print and sometimes even the neg. I had a shot I did about 25 years ago in which a llama had a flower in her hair. I loved the photo but hated the flower, so I had a retoucher remove the flower from her hair. Even on close inspection you couldn't tell the difference.

Retouching was very prominent in film photography - it was just done by hand, not digitally.

1

Yes there was life before digital photography and photoshop.

Jan 10 13 10:13 pm Link

Model

Sabine Luise

Posts: 890

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
Actually, in the past there were photo retouchers who retouched the print and sometimes even the neg. I had a shot I did about 25 years ago in which a model had a flower in her hair. I loved the photo but hated the flower, so I had a retoucher remove the flower from her hair. Even on close inspection you couldn't tell the difference.

Retouching was very prominent in film photography - it was just done by hand, not digitally.

Wow that is interesting! No, it really is.

I remember when my mother was telling me Julia Roberts body wasn't hers in Pretty Woman when it came out. I didn't realize it was around for even longer.

Jan 10 13 10:16 pm Link

Model

Sabine Luise

Posts: 890

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Cal wrote:
Isn't this in the wrong forum???????

hmm

I think it was moved?

Jan 10 13 10:19 pm Link

Photographer

GoldRoseMedia

Posts: 2938

NORTH BRUNSWICK, New Jersey, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
Actually, in the past there were photo retouchers who retouched the print and sometimes even the neg. I had a shot I did about 25 years ago in which a model had a flower in her hair. I loved the photo but hated the flower, so I had a retoucher remove the flower from her hair. Even on close inspection you couldn't tell the difference.

Retouching was very prominent in film photography - it was just done by hand, not digitally.

And the Soviets were erasing people from photographs long before that.

As for the OPs concern, that is why photographers sometimes request to see unretouched snapshots.

Jan 10 13 10:22 pm Link

Photographer

Ruben Sanchez

Posts: 3533

San Antonio, Texas, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

The reality is that no model ever shows up looking like she does in her photos, unless she only works with one photographer, and all the photos were done in one session.  Time, even over a few months, has a way of changing a models appearance.

I always tell the models, "Your face as it is, even though you are beautiful, would never appear on the cover of Cosmo or Vogue Magazine unless it is retouched in some way, because the high resolution camera will show everything (once they see a raw file, they see what I'm talking about)."  That's the reality of the business.

Others just don't get it.

Jan 10 13 10:27 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Connery

Posts: 17136

El Segundo, California, US

Sabine  wrote:
Wow that is interesting! No, it really is.

I remember when my mother was telling me Julia Roberts body wasn't hers in Pretty Woman when it came out. I didn't realize it was around for even longer.

Much longer.

In an 1857 essay, Lady Elizabeth Eastlake wrote:
There is no photographic establishment of any note that does not employ artists at high salaries—we understand not less than £1 a day—in touching, and colouring, and finishing from nature those portraits for which the camera may be said to have laid the foundation.

That's 155 years ago.

Jan 10 13 10:37 pm Link

Photographer

Viator Defessus Photos

Posts: 1186

College Station, Texas, US

Kevin Connery wrote:

Sabine  wrote:
Wow that is interesting! No, it really is.

I remember when my mother was telling me Julia Roberts body wasn't hers in Pretty Woman when it came out. I didn't realize it was around for even longer.

Much longer.


That's 155 years ago.

In the days of Caesar Augustus, artists always depicted the ruler and his wife as youthful, beautiful and strong, even when the rulers themselves were into their 70s.

Never expect art to be the truth, in any age.

Jan 10 13 10:43 pm Link

Photographer

Kev Lawson

Posts: 9453

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Awesome Headshots wrote:
popcorn

Photos 4 The Memories  wrote:
And I raise you
http://www.modernmuscleforum.com/images/smilies/munchstretchcouch2.gif

Chuckarelei wrote:
Have you ever seen an actual Big Mac like this at Macdonald's?
http://cdn.nhl.com/blues/images/upload/2010/10/bigmac_newmlogo.jpg

I want to raise, but I am all out of Aces and Burger King is closed sad

For the OP - Photoshop is a models best friend, especially when it comes to models - or normal people, none of us are perfect.

Jan 10 13 10:44 pm Link

Photographer

udor

Posts: 22752

New York, New York, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. [...]

There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

For me... not even reading any of the other replies... gotta tell 'ya Stephannie-Lynn... practice the art of minding your own business!

People know that photoshop is often used... that's why for castings, smart photographers and bookers want to see unretouched photos...

Not sure why you want to play police???

Jan 10 13 10:49 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3956

Seattle, Washington, US

Any photographer who knows what they're doing is usually able to spot this kind of retouching (overuse of liquify) and the ones that can't will just have to learn the hard way.  Most experienced photographers expect that a certain degree of retouching has been done to most model photos, and aren't terribly concerned about it. 

The model will also have to learn that false advertising could come back to bite her if she truly doesn't have any images in her port that accurately represent how she really looks.

Both of those things being said, this situation is really none of your business.  It's not against any rules to post images that make a model look thinner via liquify, or any other photoshop technique.

Jan 10 13 10:58 pm Link

Photographer

Raoul Isidro Images

Posts: 6410

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Sadly, with the power of Photoshop... anything goes.

Why report something that everyone knows is happening?

.

Jan 11 13 01:08 am Link

Photographer

RKD Photographic

Posts: 3265

Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Or... Why not just mind your own damn' business?

Unless they're using those images on a Model website claiming to be 'thinner' than they are in reality what difference does it make?

I employ the liquify tool to some extent in almost every image I use - even really skinny models get a slight 'paunch' with some poses. Usually it's a slight adjustment of the hips and thighs and maybe some off the upper arm. Though sometimes I'll add a couple of inches to the length of thier legs to make the proportions more aesthetic.


No model (or client in the case of portrait-shots for 'real' people) has yet come back to me asking to be made fatter or their bingo-wings more prominent....

Jan 11 13 01:26 am Link

Photographer

KonstantKarma

Posts: 2513

Hickory, North Carolina, US

Is it a full moon on MM or something?


Outlaw photoshop.

Jan 11 13 06:01 am Link

Photographer

D0127H

Posts: 1135

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

It depends on how you view a photograph.  Is it supposed to be an "advertisement" for a model and/or photographer, or is it an entity in itself, not requiring any relationship with the original source material?

Jan 11 13 06:29 am Link

Photographer

KMP

Posts: 4834

Houston, Texas, US

Stephannie_Lynn wrote:
So there is this model and a photographer, both which I know personally. Well, the photographer LOVES to use photo shop to make his "models" look thinner, and those said models are posting those photos to their pages. While I could point out to you the model and as I told you the imperfections, you would be like, wow.. yeah, I can totally tell. How do you report something like that. If I were a photographer and I contacted this model and something other than what I saw on screen showed up, I would be livid.. There should be some type of rule behind this "false advertising"

2 thoughts come to mind...
1.   You can appoint yourself the Chief of Profile Police and start reporting them.
2.   "false advertising"?  That's pretty ironic.   I've been in the ad biz for over 20 years. One of the most common sayings is.. "This ain't reality.  This is advertising!"

The photographer has the responsibility of doing their due diligence if the casting is important. 

The model and/or agency should always supply an unretouched,  current photo that shows them as they are.

Jan 11 13 06:48 am Link

Model

Nikki Magnusson

Posts: 6843

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

UltimateAppeal wrote:

Awesome Headshots wrote:
popcorn

Photos 4 The Memories  wrote:
And I raise you
http://www.modernmuscleforum.com/images/smilies/munchstretchcouch2.gif

I want to raise, but I am all out of Aces and Burger King is closed sad

For the OP - Photoshop is a models best friend, especially when it comes to models - or normal people, none of us are perfect.

http://cdn.nhl.com/blues/images/upload/2010/10/bigmac_newmlogo.jpg

is this the..

bigger..

thicker..

meat you guys were talkin' about?..lol..

Jan 11 13 06:55 am Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5210

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Photos 4 The Memories  wrote:
And I raise you
http://www.modernmuscleforum.com/images/smilies/munchstretchcouch2.gif

I'll see your ^ and raise you one simple and elegant 'IBTL'. smile

Jan 11 13 06:59 am Link

Photographer

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 4603

Jacksonville, Florida, US

LittleWhiteRabbit Photo wrote:
Even drop dead gorgeous agency models are Photoshopped for magazines like Vogue.   Fashion/glamour photography is focused on creating pleasing images vs. accurate portraits of the model.  You will not find one published image that hasn't had some degree of retouching.

If the photoshopping is taking scads of pounds off the model then it's up to them to deal with this in their profile so that photographers contacting them have an accurate understanding of their actual appearance.

+1

Jan 11 13 07:00 am Link

Photographer

GER Photography

Posts: 8150

Imperial, California, US

Guys who over photoshop their pics are no longer photographers, but cartoonists!!:-))))

Jan 11 13 07:01 am Link

Photographer

S W I N S K E Y

Posts: 24319

Saint Petersburg, Florida, US

i can't imagine being so concerned, over what someone else is doing..
that doesn't even affect you...

http://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png

Jan 11 13 07:04 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Hartman

Posts: 54153

Buena Park, California, US

Not something you should worry about.  The smart photographers will ask for unretouched images.  if they are hiring based on highly retouched images, that's the risk they take.

Jan 11 13 07:06 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 17882

Downers Grove, Illinois, US

MelissaAnn  wrote:
Any photographer who knows what they're doing is usually able to spot this kind of retouching (overuse of liquify) and the ones that can't will just have to learn the hard way.  Most experienced photographers expect that a certain degree of retouching has been done to most model photos, and aren't terribly concerned about it. 

The model will also have to learn that false advertising could come back to bite her if she truly doesn't have any images in her port that accurately represent how she really looks.

Both of those things being said, this situation is really none of your business.  It's not against any rules to post images that make a model look thinner via liquify, or any other photoshop technique.

As always, the voice of intelligence and logic with a model's POV...

Jan 11 13 09:25 am Link

Photographer

ontherocks

Posts: 22874

Salem, Oregon, US

i use liquify all the time. i try not to overdo it. i've never had a model complain. what you see in some portfolios are photoshop confections, not reality. it's an idealized version of them.

photographers can always ask for a recent, unretouched image or do a meet&greet.

Jan 11 13 09:26 am Link

Wardrobe Stylist

by Namreh

Posts: 20

London, England, United Kingdom

always ask snapshots additionally...

Jan 11 13 09:28 am Link

Artist/Painter

sdgillis

Posts: 2457

Portland, Oregon, US

lol. some of my models look like cartoons. report me!

Jan 11 13 09:28 am Link