A magazine with a no Photoshop policy

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Is the tide turning on retouched models?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/verily-magazine-no-photoshop_n_4079217.html

 

[Brian Legge]

I hope the makeup artists are asking for more money.

Or at least personally - lacking a makeup artist - I've spent more time dealing with blemishes and other minor flaws than I do shooting at times. I imagine anyone involved in getting it right in camera is going to be more in demand if this idea starts spreading. I have my doubts about consumers caring though.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

At least it is going in the right direction.

Jeff

 

[Tom1956]

There it is--in the Huffington Puffington Post.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

no Photoshop policy

What is that Photoshop? A shop in your country? Do they sell film?
What a pity someone bans a shop just because they sell film!

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Is the tide turning on retouched models?

Retouching has been going on LONG before the arrival of Photoshop. I was always amazed what people could do with an airbrush.

 

[PhotoJim]

I got briefly excited at the idea of a photography magazine that wouldn't spend space telling us how to use Photoshop.

I guess you know how my brain is wired!

 

[Helinophoto]

In my experience, shooting a lot of amateur-models and usually doesn't have a MUA, the girls themselves want processing done (albeit with a natural looking result). I will not even think of the reactions if I start to leave in pimples, blemishes and dark rings below the eyes for example.

Usually I also get requests if I can "push in this" and "fix that" before the shoot even starts. (typical bellies, butts and thighs)

Personally I like a natural, lightly-processed shots where the blemishes in the face are fixed and the body is left alone. But I do know that the girls I shoot gets total brain-lock if they see some (normal) wrinkle or body fat that they aren't satisfied with.

Women are their own worst enemy IMO......as it seems that most grown men actually prefer women with natural looks and the body fat that us supposed to be there. (Healthy women are supposed to have about twice the amount of body fat than men, it will naturally bend and buckle during posing).

Besides, what will happen when that magazine starts pushing out "perfect" models with no shopping done......what will happen to the body pressure that younger women tend to get hung up in?

These days at least, one can say "yeah, but the shots are manipulated". If the magazines start to use naturally thin women or women with "hard bodies" from a lot of training, exercise, special genes and a strict food regiment.....what will then happen to the pressure-factor?

 

[StoneNYC]

In my experience, shooting a lot of amateur-models and usually doesn't have a MUA, the girls themselves want processing done (albeit with a natural looking result). I will not even think of the reactions if I start to leave in pimples, blemishes and dark rings below the eyes for example.

Usually I also get requests if I can "push in this" and "fix that" before the shoot even starts. (typical bellies, butts and thighs)

Personally I like a natural, lightly-processed shots where the blemishes in the face are fixed and the body is left alone. But I do know that the girls I shoot gets total brain-lock if they see some (normal) wrinkle or body fat that they aren't satisfied with.

Women are their own worst enemy IMO......as it seems that most grown men actually prefer women with natural looks and the body fat that us supposed to be there. (Healthy women are supposed to have about twice the amount of body fat than men, it will naturally bend and buckle during posing).

Besides, what will happen when that magazine starts pushing out "perfect" models with no shopping done......what will happen to the body pressure that younger women tend to get hung up in?

These days at least, one can say "yeah, but the shots are manipulated". If the magazines start to use naturally thin women or women with "hard bodies" from a lot of training, exercise, special genes and a strict food regiment.....what will then happen to the pressure-factor?

Pressure is irrelevant when the models are fit from healthy eating and exercising, more women should take cues from that kind if magazine if it happened. I agree the fashion industry trends to push thin, but Americans are mostly overweight and our obesity rate is through the roof! The whole "pressure" thing exists I believe that, but it doesn't seem to be working since so many people are so overweight... I've known girls with eating disorders and it's sad, I wish more people could find the happy medium.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Helinophoto]

Well, here in Norway, the population is generally pretty healthy (although both sexes are getting fatter these days).

The problem over here, is that normal, slender and perfectly normal girls, want to have sixpacks.
When a person has a visible sixpack (Madonna's body), they have a fat percentage which is about 5%, while the norm is somewhere between 20-30 for women and 15 and 20 for men, AFAIK.

- Such a low fat percentage can, among other things, be linked to a high risk of Osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) when females pass the menopause.

(Here's a typical chart) http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/ )

There are skinny people and people who have a low-fat percentage, but this isn't really the norm.
If they plan to use normal people (average fat percentage) with no shopping, I would have no problem with the idea, but if they just start using people which isn't really representative, then IMO the idea of "no shopping" could do more harm than good.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, here in Norway, the population is generally pretty healthy (although both sexes are getting fatter these days).

The problem over here, is that normal, slender and perfectly normal girls, want to have sixpacks.
When a person has a visible sixpack (Madonna's body), they have a fat percentage which is about 5%, while the norm is somewhere between 20-30 for women and 15 and 20 for men, AFAIK.

- Such a low fat percentage can, among other things, be linked to a high risk of Osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) when females pass the menopause.

(Here's a typical chart) http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/ )

There are skinny people and people who have a low-fat percentage, but this isn't really the norm.
If they plan to use normal people (average fat percentage) with no shopping, I would have no problem with the idea, but if they just start using people which isn't really representative, then IMO the idea of "no shopping" could do more harm than good.

You have a contradicting statement, people who have large muscle groups because of body building actually have a higher bone density because the bones actually harden more to support the increasing lifting weight.

If they are simply doing crunches that's one thing but body building abbs usually means they are also lifting heavy weights in other areas, despite their loss in body fat their bone density should be just fine.

It doesn't matter, we are all going to end up like fat blobs with no bones like in the kid movie WALL-E haha


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

Retouching has been going on LONG before the arrival of Photoshop. I was always amazed what people could do with an airbrush.

you're telling me!

and facial retouching with leads and a knife ...

 

[benjiboy]

When looking at before and after portraits of women that have been digitally retouched , I invariably prefer the before to the after because the females in the after pictures have usually had the skin tone smoothed , layered, the wrinkles around the eyes removed and other spots, stray hairs etc. that they no longer look like human females but as if they are made out of some advanced plastic , like androids, and that's when done by professionals in publications, in the hands of the man in the street Photoshop is a dangerous weapon , if you don't believe me look at Flickr sometimes

 

[removed account4]

what i find funny is that there is even a backlash about this ...
models have for a long long long time been "a fantasy"
if the magazines want to show a "regular person" as something fantastic
great, if they want to show someone who has been "reconstructed" to fit
some sort of art director's ideal, great.

i remember reading somewhere that some "models" were going to be computer generated ...
a figment of someone's imagination .. and that's fine by me seeing most of what is
in magazines &c are pretty much the same thing ... a fantasy.

the obesity issue is linked to poverty, cheap foods high in fats and salts, and the fact
that cheap sugar ( HFCS ) is pretty much in everything one buys from catsup to salad dressing to
crackers, and unless people go back to making their own foods, or having enough money to buy
"good food" ( which is extremely expensive ) and having less leisure time, and more being active time
the world is going to suffocate in its own fat. humans for generation after generation have worked hard
eaten real foods and died young, it makes sense that when you change the equation that caloric intake
will take its toll. ( even at 7 years old )

:munch: --> 300lbs

 

[StoneNYC]

what i find funny is that there is even a backlash about this ...
models have for a long long long time been "a fantasy"
if the magazines want to show a "regular person" as something fantastic
great, if they want to show someone who has been "reconstructed" to fit
some sort of art director's ideal, great.

i remember reading somewhere that some "models" were going to be computer generated ...
a figment of someone's imagination .. and that's fine by me seeing most of what is
in magazines &c are pretty much the same thing ... a fantasy.

the obesity issue is linked to poverty, cheap foods high in fats and salts, and the fact
that cheap sugar ( HFCS ) is pretty much in everything one buys from catsup to salad dressing to
crackers, and unless people go back to making their own foods, or having enough money to buy
"good food" ( which is extremely expensive ) and having less leisure time, and more being active time
the world is going to suffocate in its own fat. humans for generation after generation have worked hard
eaten real foods and died young, it makes sense that when you change the equation that caloric intake
will take its toll. ( even at 7 years old )

:munch: is 300lbs

You're 300lbs? I always pictured you kind of scraggly, tell and slender like Maynard G Krebbs without the goatee


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

You're 300lbs? I always pictured you kind of scraggly, tell and slender like Maynard G Krebbs without the goatee


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

nope the emoticon --> :munch:
too much junk food, carmel corn and soda

 

[StoneNYC]

nope the emoticon --> :munch:
too much junk food, carmel corn and soda

I see the word "munch" on my phone with : marks on either end.

But I assume it's that popcorn eating guy, lol

Be careful or you won't fit in your darkroom anymore!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom1956]

In this day and time of absurd runaway political correctness, I've noticed that overweight women are the new PC fashion models. They're getting hefty, and it's becoming a pretty common trend. But you'll recall the "fashion world" a few years ago made some rules about their use of the toothpick girls, and now are going off the deep end in the opposite direction.

 

[StoneNYC]

In this day and time of absurd runaway political correctness, I've noticed that overweight women are the new PC fashion models. They're getting hefty, and it's becoming a pretty common trend. But you'll recall the "fashion world" a few years ago made some rules about their use of the toothpick girls, and now are going off the deep end in the opposite direction.

Fashion is cyclical ... Fat women used to be all the rage, show your wealth with a hefty girl you can afford to feed...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pentaxuser]

Retouching has been going on LONG before the arrival of Photoshop. I was always amazed what people could do with an airbrush.

Yes, Uncle Joe (Stalin) was an expert

pentaxuser

 

[Helinophoto]

Nothing to do with training, I am simply referring to research that seems to point to a link between a missing, crucial, layer of fat and brittle bone disease in women. Many in the studies have even been very physically fit. Can't find the material now, as I am on via my phone, but google about. There are other negative effects with too little fat as well, as well as having too much if it (heart attacks/brain aneurism, diabetes etc)

 

[blansky]

Most magazines are fantasy sellers and reality is not the goal. If you wanted magazines to look like the average American woman she would be probably fat and poorly dressed and poorly made up.

This whole thing is just like the Dove campaign a few years ago to try to show "real women". Well real women probably don't buy those magazines anyways, mostly just teenage girls do.

The same with portrait photography, people don't want pictures of themselves, they want pictures of themselves looking like they are beautiful.

You can argue that beauty is an un made-up "natural" woman, and I'd probably agree but I don't see many women wanting to look that way.

How many romance novel do you think would sell if they were about reality?

You can also argue that retouched models in magazines hurt self esteem and body image in women. I'm sure it does. But the beauty and fashion and cosmetic industry is a multi billion dollar business and it's goal is to make women feel "not good enough" without their products. Think that's going to change?

 

[batwister]

I hope the makeup artists are asking for more money.

Or at least personally - lacking a makeup artist - I've spent more time dealing with blemishes and other minor flaws than I do shooting at times. I imagine anyone involved in getting it right in camera is going to be more in demand if this idea starts spreading. I have my doubts about consumers caring though.

What about this 'HD' make-up you can get? And what does it even mean? It's like that glasses advert where the northern woman says "it's laark a-can see in aitch dee" - in which case I think she needs to go back to the opticians.

 

[Helinophoto]

Granted, a lot of skin-retouch these days is horrible, you just need to look at the photo of the day on modelmayhem.com to understand that.
They even have ready-made "pores" to be placed on skin, after it has been smoothed out, looks terrible, seems to be very popular.

I limit myself to removing blemishes and evening out skin tone (as very few has those nice gradients in the skin without a proper MUA-job anyway).
Ends up very natural, even at 350% zoom, you really can't tell that it has been doctored much.

- And the models seems to be pleased so....

 

[StoneNYC]

What about this 'HD' make-up you can get? And what does it even mean? It's like that glasses advert where the northern woman says "it's laark a-can see in aitch dee" - in which case I think she needs to go back to the opticians.

Trust me I work on set on movies a lot, after the introduction of HD recording video and movie they were very very specific about makeup because it's much more obvious with the HD video if there are flaws etc. So the idea is this makeup is designed to hide lines even better than "normal" makeup... It's all advertising of course but that explains it at least.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk