Quantifying retouched/Photoshopped images: Can ya’ see the real me?

<p>Not to mention models and assistants.<br>

It goes without saying that this is one step further in objectifying women and promoting a standard of beauty that is literally impossible. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>or agumentation offered by <em>anybody</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skip, I did not mean that. Nor did I say that.<br /> I said when I was younger. I don't even think that Psychology Today is even in print any longer. Or even online. Is it?<br /> There is a NEW discipline of Evolutionary Psychology. There are even some prestigious schools offering degrees in the field now.<br /> The notion that you can teach boys to wear pink, and play with dolls, and teach girls to wear blue, and play with firetrucks....I think we have figured out that that type of modeling did not work. I think that the evidence and consensus on that whole idea, was a miserable failure. Wouldn't you agree Skip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and yet you also find it preposterous that fashion photos lead to subverted self-esteems</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Re-read my posts. I am sure I did not say that. I am saying something very different, and a little more complex than your spoonfed NYT article, Skip.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why this is still relevant on Photo.net is because we, as photographers, must not pretend to duck our responsibilities as creators and curators of images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it is very relevant. Relevant to photographers of any sort, and to Photo.net readers. I think that the best photographs exploit innate traits within us, to trigger feelings. The topic of this thread is no different than a myriad of other exploits I can think of(which would be a digression). The best photographers photograph things that we like, or like to dislike, to see but want to see. I am sure there are innate triggers in most of us, to appreciate things in these photographs. And that is on topic of this discussion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>an industry that systematically alters photographs to surround us with ideals of beauty that do not in fact exist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does exist, but in parts. I have given examples. I can give more. The magazine industry does not feed us food we don't want to eat. They provide us with photos of beautiful people, that we can see.</p>

<p>I remember the very first time I saw the photo of Cindy Crawford on her first cover of Cosmo. I had not been exposed to anything like that before, I knew not of any woman who resembled her, or looked like her previously. I did not learn previously that she was beautiful. She was beautiful the very first time I saw that image... How can that be a learned, taught, or indoctrinated attribute? <br /> That is just silly to me, now. Skip, Cindy Crawford was beautiful, and is beautiful, whether any magazine ever photographed her and posted that picture for anyone else to see. Those traits to detect her as being being beautiful are already in me, bred into me by 5000 generations of men and women I will never know, but who were my ancestors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>bred into me by 5000 generations of men and women I will never know, but who were my ancestors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And bred into you as well, and everyone else, because for the most part, we all have more ancestors in common, than we have that are not.</p>

<p>Kelly,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Digressed because I am responding to the use of doctored images in media culture and you are talking about uncontrolled erections. As I wrote before, there are many respected media critics and researchers that have accumulated a lifetimes work exposing the uses of such propaganda to manipulate the public mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am stating that these traits of attraction are already in us. And that the media is exploiting those traits. Not controlling or teaching the traits. The trait does not need to exist in reality for us to find it attractive to us innately. Of course it is manipulating the public mind. To buy their stuff.</p>

<p>Do you really think that Disney makes money off of all their Princess movies and junk because they have instilled it into our girls? Disney has put the idea of Princess Fantasy into our daughters? If you say yes, they you must not have raised any girls. All girls have Princess Fantasy in them, to one degree or another. Conditioning can only make the urge or trait stronger or weaker(by abuse for example). But even in a completely BC model, say a Skinner Box, the rat still wants the food pellet, before the experiment begins.</p>

<p>Disney makes money off their Princesses, because all of our girls want to be princesses, our girls were not taught that trait(they already have it). Disney exploits that trait, they did not instill it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Take a look at Noam Chomsky's "manufacturing consent" or the work of Edward Bernaise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will look into those things.</p>

Wonderful! We seem to be on the same page. However I don't think it is necessary to play the devils advocate here. It is

as if you are saying it is ok to use theses methods because people already have per-determined tendencies to be

exploited. Which sounds odd. Just because we can be taken advantage of does it mean we should be?

Take tobacco for instance. Human physiology is such that it can become addicted to a lethal substance. An industry of

unimaginable profit grew from that simple fact. Millions of people have died horrible deaths as a result.

Beauty culture in aggregate through multiple generations using advanced tools and communication techniques has by

and large subverted the public mind to accept falsified standards of beauty. An industry of unimaginable profit has grown

around it. Subverting self-esteem Has multipal negative effects. People exchange labor at discount prices to maintain

access to the products that will make them "better" "prettier" "acceptable". The most disturbing artifact of this subversion

however is it creates a passive and obedient society. This opens the doors to all manner of societal ills.

It is so addictive and powerful that the very people being exploited become the self appointed guardians of the system.

Not unlike smokers.

<p>Kelly,<br>

I am not really playing devil's advocate here. I just think it is important to see what is really going on, that's all.</p>

<p>Regarding exploitation? I will give you an example.</p>

<p>You have a wife, right? You're married, right? You got a job, you got a house. I don't know anything about you, but these things are so typical.</p>

<p>Quit your job tomorrow. For no reason at all. Stop paying your mortgage. Just stop for no reason.</p>

<p>And see how long it takes before your wife stops having sex with you, how long before she leaves you.</p>

<p>That too is innate, she didn't learn this from a book, or media, or whatever. It was a trait she had before she was born. I can predict it, it is not a learned behavior. A learned behavior would be if she quit her job too, and went and lived with you in your tent along the river, because she loves you and knows that it is the right thing to do. But that never happens, does it. She doesn't love you that much.</p>

<p>Now I can say, based on this behavior. That your employer is exploiting this trait against you, they kinda are. And that the whole housing and lending industry is exploiting this trait against you, because they kinda are. They want you to have a job to buy the house, your employer wants you to have a mortgage so that you come into work and take their shit everyday. They both are locking you in, exploiting a common shared trait. But you do it willingly anyway, don't you. Even if you know this is true, you are not really going to let your house foreclose, and lose your job on a whim.</p>

<p>Women have been complaining about beautiful women in magazines for a long time, and they have been doing it all my life. I remember being a kid and hearing from some woman about a photo in Playboy, "She's not real, she is airbrushed."(which is PhotoShopping). <br>

It's just that now, knowing that women innately compete with each other via attractiveness, that this is a form of female competition; that they are complaining about their lot in the competition. Which makes it the equivalent of you complaining because you were not born rich, with the ability to be a quarterback for the 49rs, or with the brains of Stephen J Gould.<br>

You would sound like a cry baby to me, if you did that, a little sniveling whiner, to me. <br>

You certainly would not get any press out of it.</p>

<p>I just found this.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00Zhsk?unified_p=1</p>

<p>http://www.styleswept.ca/2011/12/hm-admits-to-using-virtual-bodies.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It's not about ideals or to show off a perfect body," Andersson said, "we are doing this to show off the garments." Bull.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>H&M's motives are truly lost on me. <br /><br />What's not lost, however, is the number of little boys and girls who will see this ad. Little boys who will then be duped into thinking that women actually look like this, and little girls who will cry themselves to sleep at night thinking that they don't measure up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By: Laura.</p>

<p>Let me rephrase her comment, but reversing genders.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's not lost, however, is the number of little boys and girls who will see this issue of Sports Illustrated. Little girls who will then be duped into thinking that real men are actually like these athletes, and little boys who will cry themselves to sleep at night thinking that they don't measure up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By: Bob<br /></p>

<p>This is another example of the cry baby whining which is just silly to me. Sorry, Laura, that you are not attractive(as you think you should be), and you have self esteem issues about it. But, grow the **** up.<br /></p>

<p>I photograph fashion all over Europe and Scandinavia. The issue needs to be addressed at multiple levels.<br>

To give you an idea about how the fashion and fashion magazine industry have themselves to blame, these were the specs I got last week to find a model for haute couture(so they are also part of it too):<br>

Female caucasian<br>

Age 13-15<br>

Height at least 5'8"<br>

Weight max 55kg<br>

Prefer flat chested (so they know she'll fit into anything)<br>

Try to have the parents waive the permission agreement.</p>

<p>I refused the assignment.<br>

So the next thing they want is if we can't find someone with the above specs, then photoshop a prior image and submit that.</p>

<p>So you see where the problem arises? I for one would be happy to see retouched images compelled to have a small watermark saying so. We never had this issue in the film days because doctoring a film negative or transparency was a black art.</p>