Images and reality

[alexpardi]

<p>Maybe not perfect, David, let's say "good enough" ;-)<br>

Someone mentioned vanity. But this whole thing is exactly the opposite: my vanity is tickled when I am told I <em>am</em> beautiful, not when I am shown how I could be beautiful in an impossible way.<br>

And this is also different, although in a subtle way, from makeup or wigs or push-ups or any other device that I wear to look better than I am; because in that case my body does actually look better (or worse, depending on taste, but this is another matter), and I can perceive a difference in my social life (this perception can be wrong, but this, again, is another matter). It's in the same league of combing oneself and being tidy. A retouched photograph doesn't change my look at all, it's something "out of myself".</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Although I agree with the first part of what Wouter Willemse says, where I do differ from him is in the suggestion that such photo editing software is 'no different to pushing the saturation slider way out on every fall foliage Landscape' and "What you like, and what you feel is correct treatment of an image and how it is presented, is not all that relevant". The creators intent is not to communicate facts but rather an 'idea'. That I can live with and accept only when it is not based on an illusion which is often perpetuated by the media into thinking its factual. It is nothing like pushing the saturation slider way up, or way down for that matter, because there is a conscious effort to deceive the view through sublime editing and communicate an intent based on false pretences. Although an image is not always about reality, when its intent is designed to be exactly that, then that image stops being about like and dislike and becomes an issue of ethics in false advertising (when these images are used to sell/communicate a product or an idea)</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"False advertising"? I think its the god's truth about our society. And it's not "out of myself" -- it's precisely inner -- all those hopes and aspirations; those imagined "ideals" toward which the smoothed, toned and buffed face/body is striving.</p>

<p>Did those retouched photos fool anybody? (If they did, I guess you must be puzzled by this thread.) If I make a "sincere," "me-just-as-I-am" picture of that superficial and vain person who wants, more than anything to have a Portrait Professional portrait, then which is the more "true"? The more honest? The more real? The ambitions and "intentions" revealed by the retouch can be at least as "honest" as the clinically "true" picture of bumps, warts, and wrinkles. </p>

<p>And, worse, call me a cynic, but I *really* doubt the virtuous modesty of the "I'm always wonderful just the way I am" claimants. If that were true, an autopsy photo would be just perfect.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>"Did those retouched photos fool anybody? (If they did, I guess you must be puzzled by this thread.)"</p>

<p>@ Julie. Yes they did and continue to do so. Look at any teen/tabloid magazine , then look at their target audience and you will see a large percentage of teenage girls, and boys for that matter, enthralled by images of supposed beauty and fitness. They are fooled every day and wanting of that beauty will starve, suffer from bulimia etc... in order to achieve it. But I'll go one step further than the teenage market audience and suggest the whole cosmetic industry is founded on false advertising towards a target audience of men and women far older. An industry managed through the use, in large, of photo editing/retouching images that most people simply do not see as anything other than genuine. </p>

[alexpardi]

<p>One thing is hiring a pro to have your picture taken and look at your best; one thing is having him manipulate the photograph in order to make you slim, enlarge your breast, etc. It's about the same difference I see between makeup and plastic surgery.<br>

There's nothing wrong in trying to look nice, but this is increasingly becoming an obsession...</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I think you overestimate the naiveté of teenagers. They *will* compete. Try to stop it ...</p>

<p>Can you provide an example of a culture, anywhere, anytime, present or historical, in which body image has not been "falsely advertised"?</p>

 

[Art X Photography]

<p>Actually its not based so much on naivete (although that is also a factor) as much as its based on a 'need ' to believe what is projected through the media. That need circumvents both logic in questioning the validity of such images and allows for the sublime deception of such images to continue <br /> In answer to the question, Julie, regarding present and/or historical false advertising of body imagery... No I can't provide an example to the contrary because it has always existed. I'm not suggesting otherwise, nor am I laying claim to this being a phenomenon associated only to photography. I'm simply suggesting photography is another medium of such advertising and that the genre of images currently under discussion are part of the myth being sold. This doesn't negate the ethical questions and accountability of such advertising, much like the ethics of war cannot be negated simply because of its historical existence.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"This doesn't negate the ethical questions and accountability of such advertising, much like the ethics of war cannot be negated simply because of its historical existence."</p>

<p>Agreed. And for that questioning, that resistance I <em>am</em> thankful (looking warily back at the bound-footed, ear/lip/neck-stretched, corsetted, costumed, scented, tattooed, painted, plucked, or, alternatively, completely covered, models of the past).</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Three-fourths of all girls think themselves ugly. 92% are dissatisfied with their bodies. Small wonder we have software like this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or because we have software like this?</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>We are in the main creatures of myths. Our appearance reflects what is in our heads. It is a form of amusment and a way to act out our cultural proclivities. Too much is made of excessive behvior. That is part of the entertainment for kids and adults. We ARE the media.</p><div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em><<<"The ambitions and 'intentions' revealed by the retouch can be at least as 'honest' as the clinically 'true' picture of bumps, warts, and wrinkles.">>></em><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Maybe I'm just photographing the light of people, not their bumps and warts and not their false hopes and dreams.</p>

<p>Bigger picture, folks. Bumps and warts are details. I try not to get distracted by them.</p>

<p>Tell a story . . . move the focus.</p>

<p>Honesty in a photograph? How quaint. :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Art,<br /> I quite get your point, though I stick to mine, and agree with Julie's replies too. To me, you're working from a false premise:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>..because there is a conscious effort to deceive the view through sublime editing and communicate an intent based on false pretences. Although an image is not always about reality, when its intent is designed to be exactly that,...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think where you go wrong is that the intent is reality (or making it seem real to viewers), and that the communication is based on false pretences. i think they're trying to sell a dream of perfection, and the photos are edited to suit that purpose.<br /> Did you follow the link I added for over the top saturation sliders? There are photos there with bright red woods. I never have seen a wood that looks like it, and when I lived near I used to be in the woods during fall whenever the weather allowed me. Apparently, some people think woods look better in red. Likewise, I never saw people with skins as flawless as this Portrait Professional promises. People tend to think it looks better (and again, I disagree). Really, what's the difference? Both are showing an image representing an ideal representation of the subject, according to its creator.</p>

<p>I often choose black and white because I think it shows the subject of my photo better. No different than smoothing the skin or make foliage bright red.</p>

<p>______<br /> Note, I am not saying this to imply that advertisement agencies have no responsibilities. They do. And they ought to take those responsibilities, and consider how far out they want to push the "ideal" they're trying to sell. But that wasn't the discussion here. The discussion was on the false assumption of photos becoming images when edited too much.<br /> Some people ruin their lives to get prestigious electronics gadgets (think iPhones with expensive 2 year contracts etc.). Most of those advertisements are not 'portrait professional' edited photos. There are numerous ways to make people want something bad enough, and these hypersmooth skins are just a single drop in the sea. Unfortunately.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"I often choose black and white because I think it shows the subject of my photo better. No different than smoothing the skin or make foliage bright red."</em> <strong>--Wouter</strong></p>

<p>This feels a bit strong an analogy to me, Wouter. While working in black and white can, of course, be considered a manipulation, we should probably consider matters of degree and the various qualities of these different sorts of manipulations. Simply choosing black and white is very, very different from the kinds of smoothing of skin we are seeing here and most of the ridiculous slider bar overkill we see with fall foliage. There is certainly black and white work that is over-the-top in terms of contrast, etc. But I wouldn't put a simple conversion to black and white in the same universe as what we're seeing done in the examples here. If nothing else, consider that for a period of time, there was no other choice than to work in black and white. It was once a default and retains some of that aspect. There is a historical precedent for black and white, so I think even in present times it is a different matter from pushing a slider bar to a Kinkade level of hysteria or making skin so unreal looking that is suited more to a Barbie or Ken doll than a human being.</p>

<p>You said it yourself, Wouter, slider bars and skin de-humanization may be about an ideal (a false one, IMO, and often a tacky or kitschy one). Black and white is (at this point in history) an aesthetic and expressive choice . . . and isn't necessarily chosen as a means to an ideal or complete misrepresentation. No one is trying to convince anyone else that the world is actually black and white. Madison Avenue IS trying to convince us that people look like this, that their products will help us look like this, and that we should want to look like this. I think a lot of overdone landscape slider-barring is just bad photographic vision and not much should be read into it.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>OK, OK, agreed, that was a bit strong.... getting carried away, I clearly need the weekend to start.<br>

Still, in the context of the original question and the implications, the editing/presentation we choose for our images are chosen for reasons. I'm not defending the Barbie and Ken look (thanks, that's easier to write!), in fact I don't like it at all. What I don't agree with is labelling this level of editing as "wrong" as opposed to other types of editing "right", and to which extends something stays a "photo" or "real". So, should we consider <em>the matters of degree and the various qualities of these different sorts of manipulations</em>? I think we should do so in context of the message that the resulting image tries to deliver. Applying a perfect smooth skin in an advert for skin cream is quite a different story than doing the same in street photography. Their quality, to me, is part of that context: how effective is the message? And the matter of degree - subtly overdone can be great irony too... Obviously, I'm hesitant to draw lines here between "OK" and "too much".</p>

<p>Would I let my personal preferences speak, then yes, obviously no Portrait Professional, and very limited use of the saturation slider, unless you just want to have a good laugh at ridiculous photos.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry, Fred, it really is very Friday... did not read the last paragraph that well. There we agree. Or in fact, saying pretty much the same thing, I'd say.<br>

(<em>including over-satured landscapes - it was just an earlier example to make a point on how that piece of software does not stand alone in editing-horrors. Next time, I'll take HDR instead ;-)</em></p>

[Julie H]

<p>Would you be opposed to my supposing that exposures are *always* all about posing?</p>

<p>That those parts of the picture such as texture and color and that can't "strike a pose," can have a pose imposed by Portrait Professional? That even not posing is a pose? That black and white is the wish to not-pose the color (one never sees black and white; it is a color vacuum that inevitably fills with the memory of color's effects [which are not the same as the colors themselves]). That the only way to not pose something in a picture is to let the viewer know that you've left it out of the picture (which is, of course, a type of pose)?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Would you be opposed to my supposing that exposures are *always* all about posing?"</em> <strong>--Julie</strong></p>

<p>Not at all. But I don't suppose it myself. I don't think exposures are always all about anything. Different photos (if by "exposures" you mean photos . . . if not, you'd have to explain what you mean by it) are about lots of different things if they are about anything at all. I think some photos are not about something, they are more immediate than that. Some photos are about movement, not pose. Some are about rhythm, not pose. Some are about light, not pose.</p>

<p>That being said, many gestures not intended as poses are poses. Many so-called candid body positions we see are, in a way, poses. Just look at couples kissing in the park, guys smoking on the street corner. It's like we've learned how to do those things from Hollywood movies. So . . . poses. I can distinguish intentional and non-intentional poses, though, from more natural movements, which don't seem like poses to me.</p>

<p>A wish implies an intention, and I think the use of black and white often comes with less intentionality than you're giving it credit for, and can have very little to do with avoiding color. It can have to do with tonality, abstraction, gradation, hell, nostalgia. I may want to do a photo in black and white to mimic an era gone by, having nothing to do with an intention to avoid the qualities of color.</p>

<p>No, I don't think the act of taking a picture is automatically an act of posing, though I do think it's an interesting way to look at it and provides some food for thought, especially in terms of authorship and directorship. Often when we are not directing actively we are doing so passively, with the camera itself.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>The light is posed. The rhythm is posed. Composed. How you (the photographer and then the viewer) are using what's there.</p>

<p>Also am thinking about pose as referencing something that's assumed to be already known. For example, Portrait Professional is referencing some assumed ideal. Posing is an arrow or a push to an assumed understanding. With a twist, of course. One must not be dull.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>For me, composed is different from posed, though obviously related. Rhythm isn't so much posed as felt. Often light is simply revelatory and doesn't draw the kind of attention to itself that I would consider to be posed. It often acts to reveal something or someone else. I have seen photos where light is a subject or an actor, and in those cases, pose might well apply.</p>

<p>Though I don't think these definitions are great, especially in a more aesthetic/photographic context, they get at some of the difference I'm thinking about:</p>

<p><strong>Compose -</strong> <em>to form by putting together</em></p>

<p><strong>Pose -</strong> <em>to assume a particular attitude or stance; to set forth or offer for attention or consideration.</em></p>

<p>For me, composing is more about the forming, posing more about the attitude.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think we use what's there in different ways, yes! I think calling all kinds of ways of using what's there "posing" undermines the word and the uniqueness of the act of posing something or someone. Sometimes we pose people and things when photographing them. But sometimes we don't. Photographing is photographing and posing is posing. Why conflate them?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>So, even if we were to use the word "pose" for anything and everything we do with what's there, we can look at a street photographer quickly composing a shot with people in the frame just doing their thing, we can look at a portrait photographer posing very intentionally his subjects, and we can look at the use of Portrait Professional to wipe clean all traces of texture and humanity from skin. I suppose there are things in common about all those maneuvers. There are also great differences. Ultimately, I guess I'm not sure what idea calling all of them "posing" actually is meant to convey.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I'm not sure what idea calling all of them "posing" actually is meant to convey"</p>

<p>Help is at hand, Fred.</p>

<p>　<br>

How about a big smile for the cam ,or, if cannot manage a smile "say cheese"..</p>

<p>Of course you can strike a meaningful pose sort of like "the thinker" by Auguste Rodin.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Regarding the difference between TV and reality, as prompted by the OP, I wonder the following. When growing up in the late 60's and early 70's, compared to TV and pop culture now, it seems to me that TV lagged reality, was copying trends and always seemed dated. Friends with teens: now days it seems the teens imitate MTV (party behavior), where TV seems to lead rather than follow and reflect. Given perhaps more social isolation, teens peers are those they watch on TV to a greater extent than when I was young? So that posing as a TV peer becomes the norm more than it was, and being relaxed with what one is, less common? Things seem more rigidly unreal for all the images?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"How about a big smile for the cam ,or, if cannot manage a smile "say cheese".."</p>

<p>[<em>that was Allen Herbert posing as the human chigger</em>]</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Charles, just a guess, but I'd say its the effect of the place the TV has taken in many households. From a novelty which was great whatever it showed, to a central entertainment place for the family, to a always-on-commodity. The TV channels have to sell themselves more and more to the viewers as the actual watching of the TV becomes less and less intense and focussed. So, they have to invent trends, to keep their viewer (and the advertiser). Where in the beginning, watching TV was an activity which was trendsetting in itself.<br>

Photos to some extend suffer the same - we are surrounded by so many photos nowadays that a really good one has to stand out maybe even more. Searching for "shock effects" is an easy way to get there.</p>