I never realized how big a problem photoshop has become. The manipulation of images is much worse than I ever realized. Every thing in this photo has been faked. Even her neck & legs are stretched out and made longer. They slimmed down her legs too.
A lot of the manipulation is so pointless. It’s like they think it’s expected? That somehow a real image of a woman isn’t good enough? :dubious:
I canceled my Playboy subscription 12 years ago because the photos were so heavily retouched. Sports Illustrated, FHM, and Maxim all are too fake for my taste. I never waste money on them.
Photo retouching isn’t new. They’ve always removed large moles, birthmarks, and stretch marks. I don’t object to that. But when everything is needlessly retouched it becomes too fake. It’s not an image anymore. It’s a painting.
I never imagined they were manipulating the proportions of the body. I don’t think that was possible with photo retouching they did before the 1990’s? Photoshop just takes it too ridiculous lengths.
fascinating peek at the fakery of modern photoshoots. The time lapse video is amazing.
I don’t think there has been a full-length shot of a model published in years that didn’t have a 25% stretch applied to her legs. Sometimes it’s absurd - their waist is up past the 2/3 body height point.
Makes me wonder about some of the web sites like ATK. But they have large photosets. Like a 100 or 150 images for one model. A model may have 25 photosets. Thats 2500 images.
I can’t see them altering that many photos. Way too time consuming. They probably use body makeup for large moles or tats.
I always look at the skin texture. If there’s no small moles, freckles or even arm hairs then the entire image has been retouched. Basically repainted. Thats what FHM images look like. Plastic and fake.
I use photoshop to adjust lighting, correct hue, sharpen. But I have no interest in turning it into a fake painting.
This is more of a testament to what can be done with Photoshop than a reflection of your average print ad. Yes, celebrities are routinely airbrushed and Photoshopped to death, but not to this extent. Do you really think the typical spread you see in W, or whatever, was taken of a girl with no makeup on and her hair unstyled? No, she spends hours in a chair being transformed, and then whatever “imperfections” remain after the shoot are removed by computer magicians.
I’m not sure what my point is, exactly. I guess it’s that while the whole industry of selling shit to you is entirely fake, and nobody looks like what you’re viewing in a magazine, it’s not like in general they’re pulling hobos from railcars and CGing them into beauty queens. They usually take someone of acceptable appearance, slather her in make up, take a bunch of photos, then retouch away whatever’s left that they didn’t like. What was linked to is nowhere near what typically goes on.
Okay, disregard half of what I said up there. I saw this video earlier, and somehow forgot that they actually did restyle her hair and apply makeup before the retouching magic. So yeah, the original dolled up photo (not how she originally appeared on the set) and the final version of the photo don’t seem so far off from what goes on.
I saw that one come up on my Facebook feed yesterday. Is it just me, or do they make her look like a giraffe at the end there? I mean, I get the slender neck thing, but it’s looks about 50% too much too me.
Anyhoo…this is nothing new for fashion shoots and advertising. It’s a HUGE no-no in editorial (and would get you fired), but anything goes in a non-editorial context.
Here’s a video from a few years ago put out by Dove that made the rounds that shows the whole process from make-up to Photoshop retouching, as well. There’s a number of these on the web I’ve seen over the years. (Although it’s not quite as heavy on the Photoshop.)