Article about retouching in the NYT

[Benny Profane]

You've probably heard all of this, but.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fa...OUCH.html?8dpc


I like the way they put those three covers of Witherspoon right next to each other. I've never seen that before, and, yeah, that's a bit of a problem with modern celebrity retouching - consistency, although that explains why some stars insist on they're own photographer and retoucher.

[Janko]

I was just about to post this, you beat me to it.

I like how the point the finger at retouching as the mother of all evil. I mean the whole fashion industry is built around creating these unattainable standards. When was the last time you saw a chubby girl walking down the catwalk?

[eraanexact]

If they want to do some sort of blame game, then they should look at the art directors first.

[pixelmonger]

Everybody wants objective subjectivity, don't they.

[stopa]

World is so huge, that there will be enough space for untouched and retouched images.
We choose those magazines, because it sales life wrapped in plastic.
Ask somebody on the street "Do you believe that every cover was retouched?" - and they don't want to know the truth. I was asking... now I don't want to hear the answer.
Photographs have never reflected reality- photography is an ART - and ART is shortening of ARTIFICIAL. (Photo journalism is a right direction if we looking for real-life)

(Thank you Benny Profane - I always look for your post)

[Markzebra]

"photography is an ART" - rubbish, commercial photography is very far from being Art. Using the word "Art" is far from providing justification for some of the rubbish in terms of retouching that is being done now. Craft yes, bad craft mostly. As the second of those ridiculous Reese Witherspoon's clearly shows

[stopa]

I mean exactly what world ART means - an ARTIFICIAL life.
And I fully agree with you Markzebra.

[BodegaGo]

“Anybody with a few days’ experience on Photoshop can drop in a new background or remove a pimple off a girl’s nose,” said Phil Poynter, who shoots campaigns for Tommy Hilfiger and editorials for Love and Pop. Still, he noted, “the big discussion in the fashion business has always been about should we retouch girls, should we create a portrait of a girl that is not achievable by a real girl.”

- LOLZ
thanks phil, for demeaning everyone who's saved your crappy photos

and when did this "big discussion" happen, and why wasn't i invited? i've never heard anyone question "should we retouch." not in fashion

[kchase]

sharing that when I did research wanting to get some details on the history of retouching, i discovered that "airbrushing imagery" (owing to the invention of the airbrush to spray non-pigment paint) has been around since the 1880's when it was first used to complement under developed photography techniques. and top airbrush artists were as in demand then as now. the more things change, the more they stay the same was my take away. and good morning. kate

[stopa]

I have very old album dated at 1890 - Kingdom of Poland in Images - almost all of the pictures are retouched. And this is very well done! So I am sure that those images was processed by really experienced person. So Every Time, when somebody starts to gigle about photoshop - I bring this book to light - and look!