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"
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.
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.
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.
Photographer
Awesome Headshots
Posts: 2370
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"
Photographer
Images Maker
Posts: 763
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.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, 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.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, 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...
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
If you "know them personally" you should report it to Facebook. That's really important to them.
Photographer
robert b mitchell
Posts: 2218
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.
Photographer
Top Gun Digital
Posts: 1528
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.
Photographer
Cal
Posts: 749
Santa Ana, California, US
Isn't this in the wrong forum???????
Photographer
Photos 4 The Memories
Posts: 1308
Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US
Awesome Headshots wrote:
And I raise you
Photographer
Garry k
Posts: 30130
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
assume you are not talking bout her
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
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?
Photographer
M A R C P H O T O
Posts: 267
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.
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.
Model
Sabine Luise
Posts: 890
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Cal wrote: Isn't this in the wrong forum???????
I think it was moved?
Photographer
Heels and Hemlines
Posts: 2961
Southern Pines, North Carolina, 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.
Photographer
Ruben Sanchez
Posts: 3570
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.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
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.
Photographer
Viator Defessus Photos
Posts: 1259
Houston, 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.
Photographer
Kev Lawson
Posts: 11294
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Awesome Headshots wrote: Photos 4 The Memories wrote: And I raise you
Chuckarelei wrote: Have you ever seen an actual Big Mac like this at Macdonald's?
I want to raise, but I am all out of Aces and Burger King is closed For the OP - Photoshop is a models best friend, especially when it comes to models - or normal people, none of us are perfect.
Photographer
udor
Posts: 25255
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???
Model
MelissaAnn
Posts: 3971
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.
Photographer
Ralph Easy
Posts: 6426
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Sadly, with the power of Photoshop... anything goes. Why report something that everyone knows is happening? .
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....
Photographer
KonstantKarma
Posts: 2513
Campobello, South Carolina, US
Is it a full moon on MM or something? Outlaw photoshop.
Photographer
Darren Sermon
Posts: 1139
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?
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.
Model
Nikki Magnusson
Posts: 6844
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
UltimateAppeal wrote: Awesome Headshots wrote: Photos 4 The Memories wrote: And I raise you
I want to raise, but I am all out of Aces and Burger King is closed For the OP - Photoshop is a models best friend, especially when it comes to models - or normal people, none of us are perfect. is this the.. bigger.. thicker.. meat you guys were talkin' about?..lol..
Photographer
Drew Smith Photography
Posts: 5214
Nottingham, England, United Kingdom
Photos 4 The Memories wrote: And I raise you
I'll see your ^ and raise you one simple and elegant 'IBTL'.
Photographer
PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY
Posts: 4606
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
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 8463
Imperial, California, US
Guys who over photoshop their pics are no longer photographers, but cartoonists!!:-))))
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
i can't imagine being so concerned, over what someone else is doing.. that doesn't even affect you...
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
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.
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 18392
Elmhurst, 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...
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 23575
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.
Wardrobe Stylist
by Namreh
Posts: 20
London, England, United Kingdom
always ask snapshots additionally...
Artist/Painter
sdgillis
Posts: 2464
Portland, Oregon, US
lol. some of my models look like cartoons. report me!
|