- Facetune app. - we took photos of ourselves and began to alter our appearances with various tools, such as reshaping/resizing facial features, brightening skin, etc. The more changes were made, the less the photos really looked like ourselves anymore.
- Making the changes was enjoyable when it was just silly, however after making more and more changes, when we realised we were 'correcting' our own faces it became self-depricating.
- I didn't really mind the changes being made to myself as we didn't make many, however I think if I was a model in industry, having my whole bone structure altered would take things too far.
- I think editing the photos made the models look worse after a while - smoothing a few blemishes is okay, but soon the faces just began to look face and lifeless.
- I would like to practice editing photos more, to experiment with heavily altered images compared to subtle touch-ups.
- If I were to do this again I would take the photo in better conditions first; using better lighting and make-up, so that less editing would seem to be needed. I will need to practice my photography skills and setting up lighting that is flattering for me/my models.
- In editing photos, are we still only improving looks, or are we turning people into an entirely new person?
- Compared to make-up, editing photos on computers can make them look much more false - when too many blemishes, shadows and creases are removed, it eliminates any sense of character from the face, and makes them look fake.
- Ethically, there are faults in post-production. People begin to recognise their supposed 'flaws' more, and so feel worse about their appearance.
- Modern technology is developing a computer which automatically generates 'better' versions of facial images; by adjusting symmetry, youthfulness, clarity and smoothness, and vibrance of colours
- But does a scientific definition/formula reflect current ideals? Beauty, and our perceptions of it, constantly changes.
- Also, this computer only works for white faces. Furthermore, there a variations in ideals of beauty in all different ethnic groups, so generated faces may not appear more attractive to some people at all.
- 'The Uncanny Valley' - when 'perfection' becomes creepy.
- Touch-ups on photos began being done as early as 1860s; however this would mean the photographer/artist painting in fine details or blurring over blemishes and lines after the photo had been printed. In the 1930s, a photo of Joan Crawford was retouched by James Sharp, who spent six hours using a machine which backlit and vibrated the original negative, meaning the film could be physically smoothed out.
- Is it still acceptable in modern day? In this day and age, there are so many campaigns about feeling beautiful as you are, in your own body, that it seems strange that so much editing still takes place in model shoots. As viewers, we want to see beautiful images; but when models begin looking fake, or too 'perfect', and thus create unrealistic goals for naive viewers, it doesn't seem like such a good idea. On the other hand, if completely unedited photos were published, I think viewers would be disappointed; it is hypocritical of us to say we disagree wholly with retouching photos.
- This asks the question of why companies feel the need to continue heavily editing photos, especially as some adverts have been banned due to false advertising
Banned due to heavy
airbrushing in post-
production - Is what the models want considered? Why do fashion companies get to make the decision about editing photos - what if the model liked how he/she looked in the raw photo, or disagreed with unrealistic-looking edited photos?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.