Altered-image ratings tell you just how fake photos are

If you're doing this... you need to be putting some type of disclaimer.

reply to post by gabbermatt




Nobody is doing that, that's an extreme. While fun to attempt to do that, it is a very long process to do that so no one can tell you did it. It would be easy to do it for a YouTube video at crappy resolution, doing it on a HR photo, where other people will be staring at it is a little more tedious. And most would charge an arm and a leg for this amount of photoshop work to be done properly.

I seriously want you to know that no one is doing that, no one is taking a 500 pound woman to a 115 pound woman. They would start with a smaller model to begin with. If a large woman wanted portraits done and you showed that you did this to her photos you would probably end up getting smacked.

While facial reconstruction takes place (symmetry, enlargements of eyes, and reduction of larger features) the person should be recognizable afterwards to be successful. And yes bodies are trimmed and breasts are enlarged, but unless otherwise stated, it is usually done very subtly.

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


I would hope noone is doing that seriously lol.. but it does show the capabilities. Also, if you're going through a magazine do you stare every image down looking for imperfections or do you quickly glance at them then move on? Now... think about what the majority of people would do and you'll realize getting by with semi-shoddy photoshop work in a magazine would not be that hard to pull off.

Against it. It's just more intrusive legislation for something we don't need government for. It wouldn't make any difference anyway. An easy way around it is to alter all of your images in some way, even if they didn't require it. If they all have the same rating, you really wouldn't know any more than you do now.

Originally posted by someotherguy
Doctored photos are not just for "beautification." They are also for deception, such as for concealing a double. Here is documentation of "faulsified" photos of Paul McCartney:

Faulsifying evidence: photo-tampering & illusion creation

Agreed SomeOtherGuy. And let us not forget the vast catalogue of outright faked computer
generated images that make up the majority of photographs (and video) proporting to have
captured the unfolding events of 9/11.
www.cluesforum.info

Actually i think this type of grading shopped pics of celebs and make-up ads etc is a long time coming.

When you are shown a picture with a tag line and you are being told that this new product will make you look "this beautiful" when in fact the very picture is heavily edited - its just not fair marketing at all.

A new loan company has to put its real % APR at the bottom etc, i dont see why being another piece of crappy product with a misleading pic should be any different.

Originally posted by midniteracerx

I don't like the idea of rating how much an image is edited. I think its better for the photographer's business if the audience believes that he or she can go out, press the shutter, and create an amazing image. They don't need to know how much work goes into the final product. Let their be some mystique in how we arrive at our final product.

you're final product is a lie. it would be like classifying a fiction book as non-fiction and claiming it's true.

if books, movies, paintings and other forms of art have to distinguish between authentic or artistic license, then photos should too.

especially when it deals with news. you can't pass something as legit, when it's clearly fake.

you're not a photographer anymore, you're a computer programmer.

Millions of people are being deceived and they are being brainwashed into believing that they can look like the "beautiful" celebrities and be like the beautiful celebrities if they "buy" the products that the beautiful celebrities who are being paid mega-bucks to advertise and its all about nothing except selling lies and selling false perceptions that are spoon fed to gullible people that will "never" look like the "beautiful people" who in reality are actually extremely over-rated and in the end the celebrities get richer as the "regular" nobodys,the average janes and joes keep themselves in financial desperation spending money they dont have trying to become just like someone they will never be...

Clearly the professional photographers whose clients are thrilled at looking better in their keepsake photos than in the mirror hold this idea in scorn.

And I propose that at that point the service they perform is precisely what their clients want. So more power to them.

But when an "advertisement" is supposed to represent something to a viewer, and that something is patently false when judged by the un-retouched photo... well, in the olden days, we called that lying.

Of course, nowadays, the media, public relations, marketing... all of that is about lying... for profit. The industrialists that are teaching our daughters that their lips aren't pouty enough, their skin isn't enough like polished plastic, and their breasts need to be inflated, are simply causing more problems than their profits justify..... Also, remember they are teaching our son's that the people with whom they should be planning their futures must appear 'airbrushed' in real life.... and that they themselves better be 'beach-ready' if they want that Jersey-Shore success to come their way.

Personal photography is personal. And I don't really care if "glamour" shots are legitimate wants and desires of people to bolster their self-image... but I bet you would care if you were expecting to meet that person ... and found out they weren't a die-cut sex doll after all...

But when the message is repeated ad nauseum that "these bold eyelashes" are the best, and that "this brand of cereal will make you more like the 100 pound sex bomb you need to be" it is clear that a line has been crossed... and that line was called the truth in olden days...

... now it's just "anyone who doesn't know this is touched up or fake is an idiot." So their idiocy is the problem... not the lie? Sorry, that's too easy an out for people who spend millions trying to convince the world to give them billions.... based upon the illusion of god-like glamour created by a machine on a virtual representation of a person who looks, and is, as human as anyone else.

reply to post by Maxmars


GREAT find. ...Not to make this all about me, , but - I've been avoiding doing video partly because of "privacy" concerns, partly out of vanity - I'm almost 60, and look like hell compared to how I used to look. Seems like I should just do it and at least make a small point about actual reality. Something to think about.

We're all destructively insulated from truth-in-imaging, young and old alike.

S&F&