5 ms·

Looks like a very small finishing touch was given to my amateur eyes. But maybe someone versed in phitography may chime in and educate us? It is a bit sad tha

Looks like a very small finishing touch was given to my amateur eyes. But maybe someone versed in phitography may chime in and educate us? It is a bit sad that just make up wont do the job anymore, I mean the people on the covers all get a proper make up job and a hairdo. Who and why are these ideals pushed down peoples throats?

alistairSH 4y ago
Yes, the model used in this study only detects a single type of edit (Adobe's FAL tool). There are likely other edits applied outside the scope of this study. And, yeah, it's sad that two unarguably beautiful women aren't suitable for magazine covers without extensive make-up AND THEN extensive editing.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  I don't understand harsh judgements like this. Nobody thinks the ladies are unsuitable, or need fixing in any kind of serious sense. But the cover of a magazine is what sells. Artists are going to tweak everything. Portrait and fine art photographers go to great lengths to control lighting, angles, poses -- are their subjects are not good enough to photograph in natural light, with an unplanned pose? Of course not, but they are trying to create the image that achieves the best impact in line with their personal vision. Animators pervasively create characters with bodies superior to any human being. Are they doing that because real human beings are unacceptable? No, it's just the artificial perfection generates attraction and inspiration in us. Almost all human beings artfully adjust their appearance every day, their hair, their clothing, not just makeup. Are they not good enough humans when they get out of bed? Of course they are, but they have the ability to create a more positive impact. Art is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Unless contrast enhancement or other filters help expose the raw reality better.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Art is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Fair points above. A few related thoughts, in no particular order... - I hate that modern male leads are all built like Greek gods. Think Connery's Bond vs Craig's Bond. - I understand the photographer's need to produce images that sell. But, for me, there's a line in the sand between make-up and lighting during the shoot, then the "normal" post processing (WB, curves, etc), and then pixel-by-pixel editing (FAL, etc). For me, the first two sets still produce a "real" image. The third set moves from documenting reality into fiction (yes, that's a totally subjective opinion).
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > reality into fiction This is the real sticking point, I think -- the images being produced are fiction, built on an underlying reality ("Based on a true story" is still fictional). But a whole lot of people don't think they're fictional at all, and think that they represent how people should, or even could, look. Then fault themselves for not being able to attain something that was never attained in reality in the first place. That's not a criticism of the images, really. But it's still an issue.

alistairSH 4y ago

Yes, the model used in this study only detects a single type of edit (Adobe's FAL tool). There are likely other edits applied outside the scope of this study. And, yeah, it's sad that two unarguably beautiful women aren't suitable for magazine covers without extensive make-up AND THEN extensive editing.

Nevermark 4y ago
I don't understand harsh judgements like this. Nobody thinks the ladies are unsuitable, or need fixing in any kind of serious sense. But the cover of a magazine is what sells. Artists are going to tweak everything. Portrait and fine art photographers go to great lengths to control lighting, angles, poses -- are their subjects are not good enough to photograph in natural light, with an unplanned pose? Of course not, but they are trying to create the image that achieves the best impact in line with their personal vision. Animators pervasively create characters with bodies superior to any human being. Are they doing that because real human beings are unacceptable? No, it's just the artificial perfection generates attraction and inspiration in us. Almost all human beings artfully adjust their appearance every day, their hair, their clothing, not just makeup. Are they not good enough humans when they get out of bed? Of course they are, but they have the ability to create a more positive impact. Art is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Unless contrast enhancement or other filters help expose the raw reality better.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Art is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Fair points above. A few related thoughts, in no particular order... - I hate that modern male leads are all built like Greek gods. Think Connery's Bond vs Craig's Bond. - I understand the photographer's need to produce images that sell. But, for me, there's a line in the sand between make-up and lighting during the shoot, then the "normal" post processing (WB, curves, etc), and then pixel-by-pixel editing (FAL, etc). For me, the first two sets still produce a "real" image. The third set moves from documenting reality into fiction (yes, that's a totally subjective opinion).
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > reality into fiction This is the real sticking point, I think -- the images being produced are fiction, built on an underlying reality ("Based on a true story" is still fictional). But a whole lot of people don't think they're fictional at all, and think that they represent how people should, or even could, look. Then fault themselves for not being able to attain something that was never attained in reality in the first place. That's not a criticism of the images, really. But it's still an issue.