Photoshop and Photography – When Is It Real?
This article brings up a good question of what can be considered genuine photography. The author talks about how a photography contest was won by two pictures that were heavily photoshopped. One picture featured a motorcyclist being chased by a tornado while the other featured flying around a lighthouse. The events in the picture did not take place, questioning their authenticity. These are extreme examples of photoshopping as the artist created a scene that never happened. In the case of this contest, these pictures should not have won. A photography contest should simply be won by the best photograph. Allowing photographers to completely render new scenes sounds like a visual design contest. I don’t disagree with cosmetically manicuring the picture such as fixing red eye, but completely re-creating a scene should not be allowed.
Do you think a photography contest should allow photoshopping?
Have you ever photoshopped one of your photos to make it more visually compelling?
Blame Photoshop, Not Diabetes, for This Amputation
I found this article amusing as New York City had to doctor a photo in order to get their health message across. If Bloomberg’s administration had such a hard time finding someone that suffered an amputation because of diabetes, maybe he should have taken a different approach to creating this awareness advertisement. They claim that there are thousands of people who suffer from this ailment every year, but they had to use a stock photo of a man who was not suffering from diabetes. There was no reason to not have a real amputee in the ad. First off, it would have been genuine. Secondly, having an actor adds more work to the process. The city had to hire a design firm to photoshop the picture. All of that could be avoided if they had a real amputee that would have gotten the same message across. After saying all of this though, I doubt anyone would have noticed the ad was fake if not for this Times article.
Do you think it makes a difference using an actor opposed to a real amputee?
Did the city gain anything by using an actor?
Smile And Say ‘No Photoshop’
This article outlines how photoshop altering exists in every magazine. It makes celebrities look perfect, as their skin is completely smooth with no hints of blemishes whatsoever. Its almost TOO smooth as the pictures look over processed and over managed. Yes, everyone wants to look like them but in reality its impossible to look like them. They can’t even look like them. In fact, the article states that people want more authenticity when looking at celebs on magazines. I also found it interesting how one celebrity can look like three different people on three different magazine covers. The Reese Witherspoon example is perfect. She looks pretty good in the first picture, although you can definitely tell its been very photoshopped. The second picture is just weird. She looks like an alien that underwent plastic surgery. The third picture is probably the most authentic that we’ll get, but you can tell she had it cleaned up.
Do you think photoshop is making celebrities look too weird sometimes?
Would you like to see more authentic celebrity pictures on magazine covers?
I Was There, Just Ask Photoshop
This article is about adding or removing people in family photos through photoshop. I found it odd that the woman in the article felt it necessary to remove her ex-husband in every vacation photo they had. Altering a picture to the point where the main content is completely erased is pointless. What is the point of having a picture taken then? Even if she hated her ex-husband, she can’t digitally remove him from her memory. Photos are meant to represent a certain moment in time. Even if the photo evokes bad memories, its still a historical document of a point in your life. It happened and theres no way to go back in time to change that. Adding people to family photos is odd as well. Why fake something that did not happen. Usually when a family photo is taken, its at a family get-together. If that person couldn’t make it, he missed the family get-together, not the photograph. I don’t think he needs to be photoshopped in to prove that hes still part of the family. The only reason to add a person to a picture is for novelty purposes, like the picture in this article of the guy with Stalin.
How do you feel about adding/removing people in photographs?
Have you ever screwed around with photoshop and added yourself to something?
No boo-boos or Cowlicks? Only In School Pictures
This article talks about how retouching has become a major part of school portraits. Parents have the option of allowing their child’s photo to be retouched in ways such as removing scars, fixing out of place hair, and even adding teeth. As the age group goes up, so does the requests for retouching. I can see how that makes sense as the older someone gets, the more aware they are about their looks. Taking a picture that will last forever in a yearbook are a big deal to some people, so many seniors get retouched. I can agree with taking away a scratch on someone’s face. The lady in the article said it best when she remarked, “My rationale was, this is not something that is part of her face,” she said. “I didn’t feel like I was changing my child.” This makes sense because its just bad timing if someone scratches their face on photo day. However, adding teeth to a gap in a child’s mouth is going overboard. First off, don’t the parents want to have an image of what their kid looked like with no teeth? Isn’t that supposed to be one of those precious moments in time? Thats taking it too far as the child’s image is being completely altered. So all in all, cosmetically photoshopping portraits is fine, but totally adding or removing features is too much.
Do you think retouching a school portrait is too much altering and not enough authenticity?
Or do you think its acceptable with the right doses of retouching?
LINKS TO COMMENTS ON Partner’s BLOG