Moral Issues with Photoshop

everyone does realize that this has been going on for years right, just not in the last 5-10 years with the advent of photoshop. models have been airbrushed for years, now we're just doing it digitally.

a few of the examples listed are rather dramatic, i think the interesting thing is that in the facial shot of the blond most of us, at a glance (and not an extreme close-up like that), would think of her as an attractive girl. its only after compared to the hyper-perfected version that we have problems with the original. the other female shot...well, i don't think she got enough sleep the night before...

chris

well, I don't know - I think people need to "worship" someone or something - something bigger, better, nicer than they are.
I mean people need to take out the human flaws out of someone and present a better product. I do not think this is true->

if the mass could see the REAL people they are worshipping, maybe they could find a way to be more comfortable with the way they are..rather than striving for something they will never be able to have without a surgical procedure or three.

I think people don't want to see the "real" people they worship. Have you ever thought about a younger Mother Theresa having her period? (no disrespect intended) - It's just a fact of life - part of the "real" people behind the legend... but we don't think like that - we need heroes, gods, and knights in shining armor. We don't want to be reminded that the people we see as our betters have petty issues like ourselves. They always have bigger problems - they fight larger battles...
As for the "normal" people in the magazines, they may be just regular, every day pawns ...but they live in that enchanted world of our betters - they have to have lesser flaws than us... or worse....

Products are represented in the best way possible. It's just like movie post-production. Take out the overcast sky and make it blue, adjust contrast, remove edges of the set. I manipulate people when certain aspects are distracting. I clean up acne. I take wrinkles out sometimes because they don't resize well. I did an employee photo directory, (don't ask me why) and I had to resize the pictures to 2 inches wide. Often times small wrinkles look very weird when resized so I fix that. If part of the face is discolored or under/over shadowed due to the atmosphere the photo was taken in. I don't beautify people unless that is what I've been hired to do.

Wassup ya'll:

Well here I am back again with some two cents simply to clarify some horrible malinterpretations of what I wrote earlier. It amazes me how we tend to read and due to lack of tone and audible voice, we easily misinterpret so much.

Apparently I was quoted on 3 parts which I'll go ahead and clarify.
Concerning models and glamour I had said that it might be best to just get another model who looks and fits the part best.

Mihai made a good point when he said it's cheaper to just get an uglier model. Made me chuckle a bit actually.

But then he goes on to say...

What you are saying - if don't have a nice wallpaper on you room at home, or a nice color onthe walls - will you go buy another house that has them - would you do that?

Well that's far from what I was saying, but if someone has to put words in your mouth to make a frail point, so be it. I think when spectra started this thread (and correct me if I'm wrong) is dealing with extremely modifying people. Walls, as many of us know, is inanimate material. So yeah, I'd just go ahead and paint them without having a cow...no problem.

Mihai went on to misquote me on another note where I stated that I don't put family pics online so I don't have someone in favor of porn or child porn (to be more specific) taking my nieces or nephews pics and putting them on other children's bodies.

But again, this cool cat Mihai said:

Would you love your family less if you saw them on a porn site? - I'm not addressing the legal issue here - just morality. Would you say your children or wife have shamed you if you saw their heads on a porn site attached to fornicating bodies?

This one was rather humorous, because I can't find anywhere in my initial post that I wrote anything about love. I'm talking about someone disgracing any of my family members due to their liking of whatever their business is...I don't need to defend my love for my family in a forum where this isn't the issue, but it did make a way for Mihai to try to say something that really isn't a part of the initial thread started by Spectra.

On the final quote where I stated I was on Spectra's level with the understanding of certain moral issues good ol' Mihai says:

can you tell me one thing on this earth which is permanent?

Actually yeah, I can. In terms of essence you have water, which is permanent in it's essence. It's always liquid, or in other forms, but in terms of essence, always moisture. Light, in terms of essence is permanently going to illuminate. Dirt, will be dirt and so on and on and on and on.

So now, going back to the real deal here on the initial starting of this thread. Are there moral issues to be addressed?

Well let's look at this. You all might know Tiger Woods, especially if you're in the U.S. and into golf, to some degree. A short while ago he was addressing some issues about his private life in an interview and was asked about nude pics of his Swedish girlfriend Elin Nordegren who models.

So Tiger went on to say that she had never posed nude and that there are no pics of her being nude. Now if Mr. Woods would have said, "Yeah, some money hungry guys were chopping her head off on Adobe Photoshop's program and twisted her around to draw some hits to a site, etc".

Do you all think that if stars, either in Hollywood or Sports would start throwing Adobe's name around, would Adobe step in to address such issues? What if the company started getting some negative static due to this stuff, would they step in to protect their name?

My two cents once again. How about we stick to the main ideas on this thread and make sense on what we're saying.

Cheers!

Zerimar3

And then it backfires:

1997: "Newsweek touched up Bobbi McCaughey's teeth in a cover photo of the one-woman baby boom. The photo shows Mrs. McCaughey, who gave birth to seven babies last week, leaning against her husband and smiling. Her teeth appear straighter and whiter than in a cover shot published by Newsweek's rival Time."

More interesting stuff from the 1860s:

"Photography had a huge impact on the public perception of the Civil War at the time, and continues to influence how we think of the war today. The camera brought home the true nature of warfare far more realistically than heroic paintings of sweeping battle scenes could.

Much of this impact was delivered through photographs of actual casualties as they lay, unburied on the battlefield. Unable to produce images of the fighting itself, photographers were able to convey in some measure the human cost of the struggle by photographing the dead shortly after the battle. Some of the pictures were, in fact, staged for the camera, with bodies rearranged or photographed from different angles and then attributed to different locations on the battlefield."

Oh boy - I just remembered - Zerimar man - you the one I had that thing over the religious issue...should have figured earlier...
I will not fight with you. If you think you have me figured out then go on thinking whatever pleases you.... I will appologize if you demand it and leave it at that.
on a personal note... if I saw my family's pics on the net I would never think they were disgraced no matter how much they were distorted or "touched" in PS. I said what I think is the truth - as I see it at least...
And I strongly believe there are no permanent (unchanging) things...

*wonders why family member pr0n keeps coming up*

Yeah Liquid:

I wonder the same thing...

If nothing's permanent, the hell am I doing here ... *teleports to another world* Bye, loser! :rolleyes: