4 ms·
I've always been curious what it would look like if magazines had to publish the "unphotoshopped version" side-by-side with the "final version" inside the magaz
by tomhallett 4y ago
I've always been curious what it would look like if magazines had to publish the "unphotoshopped version" side-by-side with the "final version" inside the magazine. Would people check the before/after and it would lessen any negative effects? Would magazines photoshop things less?
Note: I understand there is nuance in the definition of "photoshop", with respect to processing a "raw" photo for lighting/color/etc, versus manipulating it to add/remove/blur/liquify/shape.
- courgette 4y agoSome countries now require the mention that the picture modified by a digital tool. Nice intentions, but it’s like the EU cookie warning… you quickly ignore it.
- tomhallett 4y agoAgreed. That’s why the before/after is so critical - no one cares about the removal of a stray wisp of hair, but I think people would be interested in digital changes to the “structure” of the person.
- VSerge 4y agoThis would indeed be very interesting to see these pictures side by side, excluding the color / lighting correction of the picture as a whole. I wouldn't discount them entirely though, as I think at least a while back some pretty nasty selective color / lighting manipulation was being used to lighten people's skin color.
- exitb 4y agoThere’s also soo much you can do with just the right light, focal length, composition and makeup. Even with no Photoshop involved, these images are not really life-like.