Subject: Re: Photoshopping school photos
On 11/30/2017 05:56 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 November 2017 02:59:00 UTC, PeterN wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Tony Cooper"<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
>>> | Today, school photographers offer editing-at-a-cost. The local
>>> | photographer charges $20 to whiten teeth, whiten the whites of the
>>> | eyes, and remove minor blemishes. Other, more extensive services are
>>> | available. If all the services are taken, the amount could be as much
>>> | as $240. That might include taking braces off, restoring missing
>>> | teeth, removal of tan lines, adjustments to the hair, etc.
>>> | I've used "Photoshopping" in the Subject line, but some other software
>>> | may be used.
>>> I think that's not really a PS thing. There are
>>> specific programs. When I bought PSP16
>>> "Ultimate" version it came with Face Filter 3.
>>> I never used it. It required me to register and I
>>> had no interest in the functionality. But it's
>>> one of a number of automated programs that
>>> do what you're talking about. The difference
>>> with PS is that these programs don't just provide
>>> tools. They provide "wizards".
>>> Face Filter describes functions like so:
>>> Create a flawless complexion... skin smoothing...
>>> blemish removal.
>>> Beautifying tools. Basically graphical makeup.
>>> Expression redefining. "Muscle based facial
>>> morhing to create a desired expression".
>>> I'd guess that the school photographers are
>>> using such tools. Not skill with PS. Just feed in
>>> the photo and get a picture of a more attractive,
>>> similar looking person. On the other hand, like
>>> plastic surgery it doesn't really quite work. The
>>> personal character is lost and that's most of
>>> what makes someone interesting.
>> It looks like my initial response to Tony did not get through.
>> Event and portrait photographers have been fixing blemishes for years.
> Decades+, someone I knew fixed blemishes before WWII.
>> In the digital age a lot of people tend to regard photographers as a
>> commodity, and not as craftsman and artists. Photographers are entitled
>> to make an honest living.
> Ah yes as long as it's honest.
>> They need to eat, as do all of us. If fixing
>> images of teeth helps them do so, I think that's great.
> Well it does depend on the reason doesn't it.
> Just supose you were hiring a model from a catologue of some sort.
> You foudn this beautiful girl who looked exactly right for the photo shoot you wanted so you
email her and a week later she arrives, trouble is the photoshopped image yuo based yuor assemement
on isn't quite right.
> In fact this slime-sleek girl is actually over weight if not obese, only has half her teeth, her
hair is al matted and she has tatooes on her body which you didn't see in the picture, but donl;t
worry with a day or so photoshopping you can get her to look exactly like you want.
> Then there's the peer pressure your next door daughters parents gave $500 to have her picture
taken and 'adjusted' so you should do the same.
> Not that it's the photographers problem.
> But I do see this as another job NOT necessarily a photographers but a graphic artists job.
In the hair salon down the street, there is a sign in the window: "I'm a
Beautician, not a Magician."
After seeing some of the clients, I suspect the owner should invest in a
hat and rabbit. It might be easier.