retouching

Oct 10, 2008 16:53

first i read the story and thought they're crazy, but then i watched (first half) and agree with them



politics

Leave a comment

levik October 11 2008, 00:41:31 UTC
You agree with them that it's the obligation of a news magazine to retouch what's supposed to be a "candid" photograph of a politician?

Reply

vityokr October 11 2008, 00:46:59 UTC
1) front cover closeup of a magazine is not a candid. It's a cover shot. they are always retouched

but that is not even why i think newsweek is wrong -

2) comparing it to the picture of St. Obama which looks much better.

i am not saying this because i like Pallin - it's just being fair. A huge closeup shot of a woman's face on the cover of a magazine is always retouched.

Reply

levik October 11 2008, 00:51:52 UTC
From a May Newsweek article.

Most serious news organizations, including NEWSWEEK, have strict rules against photo manipulation. But for now fashion, women's and lifestyle publications typically honor no such code. They may not admit it outright, but it's common knowledge within the industry that retouching and thinning models and celebrities is not just standard procedure, it's expected and often demanded by publicists. "We're always stretching the models' legs and slimming their thighs," a Manhattan-based photo retoucher tells NEWSWEEK, speaking anonymously for fear of professional backlash. "Sometimes I feel a little like Frankenstein."

Reply

vityokr October 11 2008, 01:05:27 UTC
ok, then they should not print that photo. they should not print a picture of a woman that looks like you are an inch from her face IF they can't shoot it well.
Either do as every magazine in the country and retouch blemishes (this is different from stretchign legs. It's called 'blemish remover' in photoshop. Point and click) or shoot better photos. That's what editors are paid for - to make decisions.
Their decision to print an unfavorable photo is wrong.

Reply

levik October 11 2008, 05:48:38 UTC
So if you say "they used an unflattering picture of Palin for the cover" I can buy that. Maybe it demonstrates a bias, or poor judgment in editorial design, or neither of the two - those things I will allow for.

But the Fox news report goes way over the line accusing them of purposely not retouching the picture, something that Fox alleges they did for Obama - and that is simply not true.

I believe that a blemish remover tool falls under the category of editing they're not allowed to do. I talked to a guy that is a photographer for AP once, and he said basically all they can do is adjust brightness/contrast and hues for photos.

Reply

vityokr October 11 2008, 09:59:51 UTC
basically - i detect bias (either by design or incompetence). Just because it's applied towards a candidate i dont like doesnt make it right.

Кстати - i just realized that they might actually be trying to HELP her. Read this: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1846832,00.html

Reply

levik October 11 2008, 15:24:57 UTC
So this would be addressing the "too pretty" point? :)

Reply

vityokr October 11 2008, 15:40:38 UTC
yes, exactly. but that may be reading too much into it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up