BS: Reality digitally distorted

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:14 PM

"has some Platonic Ideal of what woman 'should' look like.."

EVERY Age in history, sice we came down out of the trees has had an idealized 'image' of what was 'beautiful' and what wasn't..... And they were ALWAYS a 'narrow theme'.... why should now be any different?

I find, that the people I hear sucking about this most ofter are the people who haven't got a hope in hell of EVER looking anything like 'societies' idealized image of 'beautiful'.... When I brign that to their attention, they most often say, "And I wouldn't want to..." in a fit of sour grapes....

"I found that programs like "Baywatch" offended my sense of reality.."
Are you on DOPE?!?! TV??? Offended your sense of REALITY!?!?! As if there's ever been anything on TV that was REAL.....   How easily lead are you?? It's just TV.... why give it the power????

"In my opinion"
And your opinion counts more than theirs why? Oh... right.. it doesn't....   sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:12 PM

I saw them today at the reception
In their glass was a bleeding man
They were practiced at the art of deception
I could tell by their blood-stained hands

(apologies to the Stones)

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:10 PM

It does seem that way...Part of it is natural: to wish to present one's self in the best possible way. It is just when it is barely "one's self" any longer that I take issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:00 PM

""If you can manipulate images, you should"

True Bill ... unfortuanely that is the norm ... goes beyond that to "If you can lie, and get away with it, you should".

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

I'll tell you "so what", Clinton..(as if anyone needed to 'justify' a commentary on modern social norms)

Somehow, the advertising industry has some Platonic Ideal of what woman 'should' look like...(perhaps much too influenced by Hugh Hefner's taste for the last 50 years!)...and thus many of the magazine ads and TV commercials seem to be afraid to vary much from a narrow theme.

I suppose if one is selling cosmetics...or lingerie... they want to 'suggest' that the model looks better with THEIR product than without, but I found that programs like "Baywatch" offended my sense of reality...you just don't have that many women of that body type working at beaches! If they'd had some reasonably pretty 32B lifeguards, I might have tuned in a bit more ;>)....

The rule seems to be "If you can manipulate images, you should". In my opinion, too many images of smooth-skinned, extra-voluptuous ladies distort our sense of what to expect.

Max Factor and the Westmore brothers have a lot to answer for! (look it up) (naaawww...I'm not blaming just them)

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM

Not just photographs are subject to distortion ... but also digitally scanned documents ... newspapers etc.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: GUEST,Bee
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:34 PM

It is less easy to detect now. Earlier retouched photos were pretty obvious, unless the viewer had a very unsophisticated eye.

I've read that many television peronalities are uncomfortable about the drive to HD TV, as the image is so revealing compared to what they are used to. Heavy professional makeup looks really obvious, and every scar, bump and pore shows up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: number 6
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:33 PM

The 'digital age' makes it much easier for us to distort history.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:31 PM

So....

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Alice
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 12:11 PM

Nobody said it is new. It is done to greater extremes than ever before.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Homeless
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:46 AM

Yeah, this guy went to extremes in his retouching (and didn't do such a hot job of it), but for the most part he was covering for a lousy photography job. If the photographer had been better, you wouldn't have needed that much retouching.

world of publication any more
What makes you think this is anything new? Retouching has been around since darn near the beginning of photography. I have a photographic portrait of my great-great-grandfather with his wife and daughter that was heavily manipulated. That print was old before digital was even a concept.
And before digital made it so easy to retouch, they used makeup artists (and still do) to change the model's looks for photo sessions. I've got a makeup book from the 1920s that tells how to make the lips appear fuller, cheeks thinner, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:34 AM

Alice, as I said on the other thread where you posted these pics, I think education re image manipulation should be mandatory curriculum from elementary school up. I'd like to see more close-ups of what happens to guy's pics too.

Most guys I've known look NOTHING like this, and couldn't even hope to aspire to it either ....

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:17 AM

So what....

Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Alice
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:13 AM

typing too fast... that should be "photos of a real woman" not women....

Subject: BS: Reality digitally distorted
From: Alice
Date: 07 Aug 06 - 11:12 AM

As I work with photoshop and digitally changing images, like many other Mudcatters do, I am sure, the thread about women's bottoms brought up this topic and I think it is worthy of a separate discussion. Here is an example of photos of a real women and how it is changed to be acceptable for publishing to communicate an idealized image of a woman.

HERE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE of how a photo is completely retouched before going to print.
This gives you an idea of how the actual bodies and faces of models are different than the photos we see in print.
Mouse-over the image and you see the original photo before being retouched.

Face - original photo and retouched for print
http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini1.html
Click here

Body - original photo and retouched for print
http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/bikini2.html
Click here

Look at how even her arm is made thinner as well as her waist and hips, while her breasts are made to look larger. And, of course, the entire
surface of her skin is smoothed out of pores to look like a plastic surface.

I'm thinking there are many other examples of editorial changes to photos we see in print and on the web. People's pores, stray hairs, acne, scars, wrinkles, etc. pretty much don't exist in the world of publication any more! From news photos to fashion photos, everything gets "smoothed out".

Alice