A magazine with a no Photoshop policy
"Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
I hope the makeup artists are asking for more money.
Or at least personally - lacking a makeup artist - I've spent more time dealing with blemishes and other minor flaws than I do shooting at times. I imagine anyone involved in getting it right in camera is going to be more in demand if this idea starts spreading. I have my doubts about consumers caring though.
At least it is going in the right direction.
There it is--in the Huffington Puffington Post.
What is that Photoshop? A shop in your country? Do they sell film?
What a pity someone bans a shop just because they sell film!
Nikon F4, F4S, F401S, F50, F55, F60, 2xF601, F65, 3xF75, F801, 2x F801S, F80, F90, 4xF90X, EL2, FE, FM, 2xFG, FG-20, 3xEM
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Retouching has been going on LONG before the arrival of Photoshop. I was always amazed what people could do with an airbrush.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
I got briefly excited at the idea of a photography magazine that wouldn't spend space telling us how to use Photoshop.
I guess you know how my brain is wired!
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?
In my experience, shooting a lot of amateur-models and usually doesn't have a MUA, the girls themselves want processing done (albeit with a natural looking result). I will not even think of the reactions if I start to leave in pimples, blemishes and dark rings below the eyes for example.
Usually I also get requests if I can "push in this" and "fix that" before the shoot even starts. (typical bellies, butts and thighs)
Personally I like a natural, lightly-processed shots where the blemishes in the face are fixed and the body is left alone. But I do know that the girls I shoot gets total brain-lock if they see some (normal) wrinkle or body fat that they aren't satisfied with.
Women are their own worst enemy IMO......as it seems that most grown men actually prefer women with natural looks and the body fat that us supposed to be there. (Healthy women are supposed to have about twice the amount of body fat than men, it will naturally bend and buckle during posing).
Besides, what will happen when that magazine starts pushing out "perfect" models with no shopping done......what will happen to the body pressure that younger women tend to get hung up in?
These days at least, one can say "yeah, but the shots are manipulated". If the magazines start to use naturally thin women or women with "hard bodies" from a lot of training, exercise, special genes and a strict food regiment.....what will then happen to the pressure-factor?
Pressure is irrelevant when the models are fit from healthy eating and exercising, more women should take cues from that kind if magazine if it happened. I agree the fashion industry trends to push thin, but Americans are mostly overweight and our obesity rate is through the roof! The whole "pressure" thing exists I believe that, but it doesn't seem to be working since so many people are so overweight... I've known girls with eating disorders and it's sad, I wish more people could find the happy medium.
Originally Posted by Helinophoto
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller
Well, here in Norway, the population is generally pretty healthy (although both sexes are getting fatter these days).
The problem over here, is that normal, slender and perfectly normal girls, want to have sixpacks.
When a person has a visible sixpack (Madonna's body), they have a fat percentage which is about 5%, while the norm is somewhere between 20-30 for women and 15 and 20 for men, AFAIK.
- Such a low fat percentage can, among other things, be linked to a high risk of Osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) when females pass the menopause.
(Here's a typical chart) http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/...centage-chart/ )
There are skinny people and people who have a low-fat percentage, but this isn't really the norm.
If they plan to use normal people (average fat percentage) with no shopping, I would have no problem with the idea, but if they just start using people which isn't really representative, then IMO the idea of "no shopping" could do more harm than good.