Photoshop manipulation
A fascinating analysis of the editing done to photographs from Victoria's Secret was linked today from Boingboing:
Part I:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html
Part II:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/329-The-Secret-is-Out.html
When I say "everything that's published in fashion magazines and advertising is edited", this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just the clumsily-removed handbag erased out, not just the gently-reshaped limbs and highlighted eyes and teeth and digitally plumped-up breasts, but a key thing that I often see but have a hard time identifying precisely, without the specific "before" photo or actual light set-up in front of me: All surfaces should have similar lighting. If her face is dark on one side and light on the other, then her arms should have the same pattern. However, this isn't what we are seeing. None of her body parts have proper lighting.
The author goes on to point out specific evidence for these alterations using a series of photo analysis tools that I've never seen before, a comparison of the model's skin tone in this and another photo, etc.
(Once again, I reiterate a point from previous conversations: such edited photos are morally neutral. Bad artistry, such as the removed handbag, sure is fun to mock, but I do not support any sort of creative limitations on what photographers and graphic designers may do to their work. I do, however, support educating the public so that we can be visually literate and easily realize the differences between fashion illustration and "real life". Websites such as the "hacker factor" are providing educational tools, and that's why I'm reposting it.)
Part I:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html
Part II:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/329-The-Secret-is-Out.html
When I say "everything that's published in fashion magazines and advertising is edited", this is exactly what I'm talking about. It's not just the clumsily-removed handbag erased out, not just the gently-reshaped limbs and highlighted eyes and teeth and digitally plumped-up breasts, but a key thing that I often see but have a hard time identifying precisely, without the specific "before" photo or actual light set-up in front of me: All surfaces should have similar lighting. If her face is dark on one side and light on the other, then her arms should have the same pattern. However, this isn't what we are seeing. None of her body parts have proper lighting.
The author goes on to point out specific evidence for these alterations using a series of photo analysis tools that I've never seen before, a comparison of the model's skin tone in this and another photo, etc.
(Once again, I reiterate a point from previous conversations: such edited photos are morally neutral. Bad artistry, such as the removed handbag, sure is fun to mock, but I do not support any sort of creative limitations on what photographers and graphic designers may do to their work. I do, however, support educating the public so that we can be visually literate and easily realize the differences between fashion illustration and "real life". Websites such as the "hacker factor" are providing educational tools, and that's why I'm reposting it.)