Subject: Re: Photoshopping school photos
On 11/29/2017 10:28 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 21:58:17 -0500, PeterN
> <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 9:34 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>> "Tony Cooper"<email@example.com> 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.
> It came through to me as email.
>> Event and portrait photographers have been fixing blemishes for years.
>> 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. They need to eat, as do all of us. If fixing
>> images of teeth helps them do so, I think that's great.
> I don't object to photographers making money, but I do see the
> practice as somewhat objectionable. The message it gives to the kids
> is that their appearance is of paramount importance to their parents.
> You're teeth aren't brilliantly white in a photo? You don't live up
> to my expectations. You're parents didn't pay to have that gap where
> the baby tooth came out filled in with a fake tooth? They must not
> love you.
To me that seems like a stretch. If a kid thinks he is not loved because
his parents didn't give him a material thing, I think there is a deeper
problem with the relationship.
> When the demand for physical perfection starts that early in life it
> can have later repercussions.
It sounds to me that you are conflating an absolute of perfection, with
making the best of what you are.
Lots of kids go to school wearing hand me downs. Is it a terrible thing
for the clothes to be neat and clean? Should the use of bleach and soap
be outlawed. If a kid stammers and stutters should he be denied speech
Your statement sounds to me like you are conflating unconditional
emotional caring with making the best of the way things are.