Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,960   Posts: 1,523,093   Online: 987
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    I think images today is just another consumer item. It's consumed.
    Consumerism is only one of the problems. The other perhaps major problem is the current mantra that everything must be done as cheaply as possible. It is a fallacy that make both sides lose: neither the producer/artist/creator fulfil his/her potential and develop his/her abilities, nor the end consumer get something of lasting value. You can safely bet that the vast majority of ghastly looking photoshop processed images were done following that mantra: done in haste (because time is costly) by poorly educated people with limited skills (because education and development of fine aesthetic sensibilities again is costly, and such employees are usually more demanding).

  2. #52
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    You've hit the nail right on the head. We are inundated with mass amounts of cheap products while low wage workers don't even have enough to live on. Also look at factory farms. We all must consume, but consume with awareness.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  3. #53
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,030
    Images
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    You've hit the nail right on the head. We are inundated with mass amounts of cheap products while low wage workers don't even have enough to live on. Also look at factory farms. We all must consume, but consume with awareness.
    Consumer economy...

    Story of Stuff...

    http://youtu.be/9GorqroigqM

    Worth the time to watch.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #54
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6

    Great video

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Consumer economy...

    Story of Stuff...

    http://youtu.be/9GorqroigqM

    Worth the time to watch.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    It's the same video UC Davis uses to teach Sustainable Design.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac View Post
    You've hit the nail right on the head. We are inundated with mass amounts of cheap products while low wage workers don't even have enough to live on. Also look at factory farms. We all must consume, but consume with awareness.
    Buck the insane trend whenever you can: never buy cheap stuff guided by the price alone because that way you help the sick practice of cheap production to continue to thrive. To reiterate, you are robbed as consumer by the cheap stuff; and you're robbed if you're making it. Well made stuff is enriching and inspiring for the reason one comes into contact with other fellow beings expertise and creativity. All people we admire today left a lasting trace for their all out efforts and their passion for what they did - neither Shakespeare economised words to finish his work quicker thus producing it cheaper; nor did Verdi count the notes in attempt to become more "efficient"; even astute businessmen like Dali or Magritte were with no holds barred attitude when came to their work.

  6. #56
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by I.G.I. View Post
    You can safely bet that the vast majority of ghastly looking photoshop processed images were done following that mantra: done in haste (because time is costly) by poorly educated people with limited skills (because education and development of fine aesthetic sensibilities again is costly, and such employees are usually more demanding).
    I don't think you'll find this is true. A least not in fashion type magazines. They pay top retouchers a ton of money as well as the photographers make-up artists and models. It can easily take a few days or more to retouch faces and bodies on top fashion shoots and cosmetic ads.

    These "photographs" are also used for display in the offices of the cosmetic companies in very large sizes and for promotion in stores, so I don't think they go cheap on any of that part of the business.

    I'm a watch enthusiast/collector and most watches in ads are also computer generated because of the time element. GOOD PUN.

    Actually when the marketing dept starts to promote the watches they are not usually even made yet, so they are all created on a computer.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bruxelles, Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by blansky View Post
    I don't think you'll find this is true. A least not in fashion type magazines. They pay top retouchers a ton of money as well as the photographers make-up artists and models. It can easily take a few days or more to retouch faces and bodies on top fashion shoots and cosmetic ads.

    These "photographs" are also used for display in the offices of the cosmetic companies in very large sizes and for promotion in stores, so I don't think they go cheap on any of that part of the business.

    Judge by the results, not by the industry rumours; the glaringly fake and lifeless photoshopped images are done (and approved) by people with poor aesthetic culture. Indeed poor aesthetic culture encountered en masse is a complex phenomenon, but apart from (lack) of individual talent it is generally caused by lack of good education, and poor working environment. For comparison sake, go to http://www.imdb.com/ and have a look at portrait stills of Hollywood stars from the 1950s; obviously retouched and perfected yet still recognisably human and not devoid of charm. Current cosmetic ads are literally depressing... not only there is a lack of interesting faces (a general problem in portraiture), but even those famous and supposedly alluring are butchered with low quality PS intervention. This is a glaring example, JR for Lancome (one of the biggest players in upmarket cosmetics, and a big advertiser in all glossy magazines). Hardly a fan of JR I can't deny her real face exude some (animalistic) vitality. In contrast her shot for Lancome is not only mediocre and devoid of anything, but what followed is truly atrocious... I simply find hard to believe that this was done by a highly skilled well paid professionals.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,937
    hate to say this I.G.I.
    but the image on the left
    looks like an airbrushed image
    from the 1970s or 1980s ...

    smoothing skin
    removing wrinkles (laugh lines and crows feet )
    and thinning a face have been done
    for 100 years ...

    i find it kind of funny that people insist that manipulation
    and reconstruction is a thing of "now" ...

    and i find it funny that a magazine has such a heavy handed approach
    to not allowing "photo shopped images" do they only allow film and hand retouched things ?
    its the same thing ..

  9. #59
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,029
    Quote Originally Posted by I.G.I. View Post
    Judge by the results, not by the industry rumours; the glaringly fake and lifeless photoshopped images are done (and approved) by people with poor aesthetic culture. Indeed poor aesthetic culture encountered en masse is a complex phenomenon, but apart from (lack) of individual talent it is generally caused by lack of good education, and poor working environment. For comparison sake, go to http://www.imdb.com/ and have a look at portrait stills of Hollywood stars from the 1950s; obviously retouched and perfected yet still recognisably human and not devoid of charm. Current cosmetic ads are literally depressing... not only there is a lack of interesting faces (a general problem in portraiture), but even those famous and supposedly alluring are butchered with low quality PS intervention. This is a glaring example, JR for Lancome (one of the biggest players in upmarket cosmetics, and a big advertiser in all glossy magazines). Hardly a fan of JR I can't deny her real face exude some (animalistic) vitality. In contrast her shot for Lancome is not only mediocre and devoid of anything, but what followed is truly atrocious... I simply find hard to believe that this was done by a highly skilled well paid professionals.
    Whether you approve of the image or not, the one one the left is not a portrait but a 'beauty shot' designed to sell cosmetics and offers the illusion of"perfect" skin. It is not designed to do anything other than to tell women that with Lancome they can look just like Julia Roberts. Women would not be interested in a product that would make them look like the shot on the right. Just because you prefer it has nothing to do with selling cosmetics, which I doubt you have spent much money on.

    If you think the person that did this retouching work is a hack, then I suggest you take the image on the right and try to make it like the image on the left, which is EXACTLY the image that Lancome paid a fortune to Julia, the hair and makeup person, the photographer and the retoucher for. IT is exactly the image they wanted to portray and promote their company.

    Your approval I doubt, hardly entered their minds at the time they released this picture to the world.

    With the people on the set that day which was probably between ten and twenty would include, photographer and a few assistants, people from Lancome, people from Lancome advertising agency, art director, set director, PR people, clothing people, hairdresser, makeup person, nail person, Julia's assistants, craft services (catering)and a few hangers on. The production would have started around 9 in the morning, with Julia arriving at 10, and shooting maybe 2 hours later. With wardrobe and makeup changes depending on what the art director has set up would last to maybe 4 in the afternoon with intermittent shots taken between wardrobe and setups. Maybe longer.

    The camera would have been tethered to a computer with the art director and Lancome people monitoring each shot and the photographer conferring with them after every few shots.

    After the day is done the art director and the photographer would work on post production which would include retouching and a number of approvals and changes all they way up the food chain of Lancome.

    In all probably about a $100,000 dollar day not counting Julia's millions of dollars paid as the face of Lancome for the term of her contract.

    As I said previously, these magazines are selling fantasy. Harlequin romances sell in the millions not for their true grit of human life but for fantasy and escapism. Fashion is no different.
    Last edited by blansky; 10-24-2013 at 12:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin