Beauty is only Pixel Deep

[Colin Southern]

Beauty is only Pixel Deep

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/be...nly-pixel-deep

[Shadowman]

Beauty is only Pixel Deep

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/be...nly-pixel-deep

Nice, I find myself looking at people and thinking I can edit that "insert correction" with Photoshop.

[Richard Lundberg]

Photoshop should have a "selfie" mode for social network sharing.

[chauncey]

Good link Colin...does Photoshop give guys like us a bad name???
With group shots, I have this habit of taking numerous images in rapid succession to pick and choose the best micro expressions for each subject. Would that be considered tacky and unreal???

[Colin Southern]

Good link Colin...does Photoshop give guys like us a bad name???
With group shots, I have this habit of taking numerous images in rapid succession to pick and choose the best micro expressions for each subject. Would that be considered tacky and unreal???

Just so long as nobody calls us "Photoshopographers"!

I typically take 50 or 60 shots per set in the studio - expressions play a big part. It's the one thing we can't control as well as other things when working with amateur models.

[pnodrog]

I now tell most people whose photograph I take that it is normal to edit and enhance the image and is there anything they would particularly like done or not done. Some are delighted at the prospect of having a mole or birth mark reduced or removed where as others insist on the image being as honest as possible.

Forget either way and I find you are in deep .............(either a polite or not so polite word of your choice)

[Colin Southern]

I now tell most people whose photograph I take that it is normal to edit and enhance the image and is there anything they would particularly like done or not done. Some are delighted at the prospect of having a mole or birth mark reduced or removed where as others insist on the image being as honest as possible.

Forget either way and I find you are in deep .............(either a polite or not so polite word of your choice)

I take a slightly different approach; often I'll get my subjects laughing and smiling, which inturn accentuates wrinkles around eyes etc. I explain to people that it's my fault that they're there, and usually soften them quite considerably.

Other thing like moles and scars - yep - for sure, always ask.

Normal rule of thumb is that if it's something that's not normally there (acne, cut etc) then zap it, but ask for more permanent things.

[pnodrog]

Harden up - just tell them it's not your fault they are ugly just before you hand them the bill..

Not sure that I would be able to make a living at it.

[Colin Southern]

Harden up - just tell them it's not your fault they are ugly just before you hand them the bill..

Not sure that I would be able to make a living at it.

I read somewhere that when a lady complained to the photographer that the photos weren't very flattering his response was "Can't help with what's in front of the lens Ma'am"!

[Black Pearl]

Wonder who's logo came first:

http://www.stuff.co.nz

http://www.jessops.com

[Colin Southern]

Wonder who's logo came first:

http://www.stuff.co.nz

http://www.jessops.com

Pretty close eh.

This is where Jessops would say "it's almost identical" - "pay us $1,000,000" and Stuff would say "it's nothing like it at all - not paying anything"! Off to court it goes -> Lawyers make $200,000 each, case swings either way.

[Manfred M]

I get somewhere between amused and annoyed when I see the nonsense portrayed by the person in the link that you provided Colin.

Some people seem to feel that using a makeup artist and using in-camera or studio techniques are perfectly okay when it comes to enhancing looks, but if someone dares to touch a pixel in post that is a major sin. This is wrong-headed mis-information of the worst kind.

The first thing a makeup artist will do after applying a foundation is to slather on a “concealer” to hide pores and other skin defects. It doesn’t seem to matter if this is done to hide wrinkles, birth marks, a mole or scar or just a bit of acne. Same issue when eye shadow and eye liner are used to enhance the eyes. Small eyes are made to look larger, eyes that are close-set look further apart. Different shading of powders are used to contour or shape the cheeks or the nose. Appropriate selection lipstick and lip lines can make thin lips look fuller or heavy lips look thinner. I can replicate any of these techniques in Photoshop, but to some, this appears to be totally wrong-headed and even immoral.

A soft focus filter or a bit of petroleum jelly smeared on a plain filter can be used to soften skin. Soft lighting and appropriate choice light set up are also common techniques to improve a subject’s looks. Broad lighting can be used to round out a thin face and short lighting can be used to slim a face. A long lens will flatten features, etc. and appropriate clothing and posing positions can make a short person look taller or a heavy set person look slimmer. Somehow in the minds of some, this is totally okay, but touching an image in post is just completely out of bounds.

When I ask people why traditional techniques are acceptable but enhancing an image in post is not, I generally seem to be regarded as one level below a village idiot. I usually get the “isn’t it obvious” replay, but when I ask them to explain how they have come to their conclusion, it seems quite certain that they have never considered this and just repeat a story that they have heard elsewhere.

[Colin Southern]

Manfred,

Probably the "difference" is that one look existed in reality in front of the camera whereas the other never existed at all.

I use both, but I do understand why it can leave a bad impression on young girls.

I tell them to Google "Stars without makeup" and point out that that stars can look ordinary and the ordinary can look like stars.

The difference between ordinary and stars isn't physical - it's mostly self-confidence and personality.

Most young girls have terrible self-esteem.

[Ken MT]

Duck again !

[RustBeltRaw]

Manfred, I think the main difference between Photoshop and real life is the Liquify brush. The tummy-tucking, breast-enlarging, muffintop-erasing, limb-lengthening effect cannot be achieved by any quick, real-world techniques.

There was a big controversy in derby a few months back when a skater accused a photographer of changing her shape. The Photographer released a RAW file, proving that she hadn't. Fortunately, even without digital tools, we can make people just look better than they think they do, and tools like Liquify (which I will not touch with a ten-foot stylus) are unnecessary.

[chauncey]

we can make people just look better than they think they do,

That is a posing skill that I have yet to master.

[Downrigger]

To me, simply as a matter of taste, PP becomes less interesting when moving beyond "what it is at its best" to "what I, or the subject, wish it was, that it is not".

In regarding people in the real world, what strikes me is how reliably a smile turns an ordinary face into a lovely/handsome/interesting one. I don't do PS (yet). I suppose it makes smiles too, but it's hard to believe it can genuinely do what all 12 or so muscles do to so globally transform what we look like to others.

[chauncey]

Mark...it's not hard at all. Simply take a multitude of images and clone/cut-paste smiles from one into another.

[Downrigger]

Mark...it's not hard at all. Simply take a multitude of images and clone/cut-paste smiles from one into another.

I won't trouble you with requesting a demonstration but can't help feeling it would be like trying to make wine by adding vodka to grape juice - you'd stop noticing the difference once you'd had a lot of it.

[Manfred M]

Colin, Lex – I think you have both hit the issue, but have skirted around it a bit.

The complaint about Photoshop is the intent to deceive with the images that have been post-processed, and the advertising industry is very much singled out for crossing the line too often. It is just the latest tool that is used to produce an “enhanced” view of the world. It is viewed as particularly odious when “they cross the line” and unhealthy lifestyle decisions can result, especially amongst the young and impressionable. Photoshop quickly becomes the villain when anorexia or and other psycho-social issues become publicized. I find it a bit amusing, when the tool gets the blame. I guess it is far easier to do this than to do something about the fashion or cosmetics industries and their portrayal of the female form.

Frankly, this precedes Photoshop; the most (in) famous example was the Campbell Soup where clear glass marbles were used to enhance the appearance:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&typ...2.4.scott.html

I personally have no issue with either the Liquify or the Puppet Warp functionality and I have used both to “enhance” the image. I clearly remember using liquefy to slightly increase the size of the eye of a subject. Her left eye was noticeably smaller than her right eye and balancing this out was something she was quite happy with. I think the issue with these tools is really the degree to which they are used or misused.