Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by BreakGuy, Jan 10, 2012.
This video is funny, yet completely true.
Yep, I use Photoshop every day while working. I don't see what the big deal is, it's no secret nearly every non-journalistic photograph you see published has some sort of post-processing done to it.
It's no different from lighting or lens choice to present your subject the best you can before you ever even click the shutter.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with you on the fact that it's no secret Photoshop is used in all print media. However, I don't think most people realize to what extent it's used and just what drastic changes are made to people's bodies.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure by the time we reach a point where a proper noun has been "verb-ized," such as the case with Photoshop, there's enough public awareness of what all it is used for.
This one's a bit funnier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X71WXhOyWj8
There's thousands and thousands of teenage girls starving themselves to look like their idols on the cover of magazines, trying to reach impossible targets. There is clearly not enough public awareness about how extensively used Photoshop is.
I'm not against Photoshop by any means. It's a fantastic tool and an incredibly fun toy to play with. I don't think it should be being used to exploit people into having unrealistic expectations of what others look like.
Yes, it is different. Very different.
I'm sick and tired of people joking about using Photoshop to make people prettier. The joke is getting so old, it's just not funny anymore.
I fair chuckled to that video.
This video looks shopped- I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
Exploitation is a mindset and intent, but by no means does the tool bear the blame. Photoshop is nothing more than a tool. I teach photography students all sorts of ways to mold, shift, and alter a photograph into the final version of how their mind wants the scene to be. Reality is lost the moment a camera is picked up.
Actually, it isn't. You'd be surprised what light, compression, and angle can do for a subject or scene.
Yes, back-lighting, depth of field and, well let's just say it, Vaseline on the lens, have been well used in the past.
But what is happening now is beyond reason, when it targets young and impressionable people, and leads to illness as a result.
High-fashion purveyors are in the same league, so no need to fret.
This is a very good point. Ironically, in an age of ubiquitous cameras, there are many people who see every image, even obviously fake ones, as real.
Rather than bashing image editing tools, the objective should be to educate the public on the use of these tools to create images of people who don't really exist.
Absolutely, but the public needs to understand that fall images that range outside of journalism will be altered to make a subject look their absolute best.
What's weird is how many people don't connect the images of celebrities on their early morning jog, looking sweaty and acned with that same person on the cover. That's the same person, but they look completely different because a dozen technical experts have worked relentlessly to make them so.
That is funny ****
This topic always makes me think of a scene in the movie Gia (a model) where a woman says to her:
"I'm some kid from Ohio, reading fashion magazines, looking at your picture and thinking I'm supposed to look like that. And going ****ing crazy because I don't. Because nobody told me it was a lie. Because the magazine doesn't come with a label that says, "Caution: This is a lie. Nobody looks like this." Not even you.
Of course most people realize it's touched up but the extent of it is incredible. What ever happened to talented photographers shooting already very made-up and beautiful models? Why do we have to be fed these heavily altered and unattainable images of what beauty is supposed to look like? I just wish the editing wouldn't go to SUCH extremes.
Everything in advertising is fake. You should see what they do to burgers:
I am sure that you are right. I recall seeing a video link being posted, not just once but twice on the same thread. It was something about christians vs atheists, and even in it's doctored form it was far from being convincing.
Vendetta much? Did you get your sad little online thrill of the day? Hope it tingled.
Absolutely. I'm fine with Photoshop being used to remove moles, freckles, changing hair colour etc, but when it gets to the point that they are reshaping the bodies of people it's gone too far.
And yet you don't think makeup, breast jobs, diet choices, etc do not make someone altered?
Then don't do it. How do you feel about movies such as Alice in Wonderland, when the evil queen had the enlarged head? Or how do you feel about Loretta Lux's photography?
Alice in Wonderland is a fantasy 3D film loosely based on a children's book. No one is going to be shocked about the Queen of Hearts' appearance. Unless you really think Helena Bonham Carter looks like that and has had her head bound up.
Loretta Lux is an artist. Do I like what she does, not really. I find them really creepy.
Quite frankly most artists whether using ink, paint or marble have been cleaning up the images of their sitters.*
L'Oreal, Chanel, Revlon et al are massive corporations selling prettily packaged chemicals with outrageous claims. And since they advertise in glossy "fashion" magazines the publishers will push that agenda.
Put simply, false advertising.
Spot the difference?
"Mr Lely, I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all these roughnesses, pimples, warts and everything as you see me, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it."
Every time I see Photoshopped models I instantly switch off from what they're trying to sell/promote. I find the look horrible and artificial.
And that video wasn't bad . Recycling the same jokes but in a well polished way.
Too funny, but I think most people realize that any person on a cover of a magazine has been air brushed. They're just getting out of hand lately by changing body shape skin color and what not. Not that I really care, I don't even read those magazines
There's a HUGE difference here. Not sure what the difference is? How about one being real alterations and one being fake.
People can achieve the look of those with makeup, breast jobs and diet choices because they are REAL results. I can physically touch the result of a face with makeup, breasts that have had surgery and the body that's been on a diet. They're all REAL.
What I can't physically touch, and this is what people are trying to achieve - for real, are the Photoshop results. People are trying to look like fake people and that's the issue at hand here.
There is a massive difference between makeup and diet choices (and of course animation and art), and an advertising photoshop job which takes a normal-size and normal-skin person, makes them look almost impossibly thin with perfect skin, and sells that as reality. As cliché as it sounds, young, impressionable girls try to work towards that impossible outcome, wrecking themselves in the process.
For me, I almost never find these types of things attractive, as I don't find overly thin women attractive.