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"

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.

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...

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.

Awesome Headshots wrote:

And I raise you

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?

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.

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.

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

I think it was moved?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

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..

Photos 4 The Memories  wrote:
And I raise you

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

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

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...