On photography

[Lashiec]

Today I collected a couple of links to interesting pages that involve photography in various degrees. So I decided to include them in just a single post, instead of one per page. Let's start.

The year in photographs

The Boston Globe, like the Wall Street Journal, has a daily section devoted to posting high-quality photographs illustrating different news around the world. Today they posted the last part of a special edition dedicated to showing in photos how the 2008 was. It's pretty amazing overall.

Part 2 and Part 3. The three pages are pretty heavy in graphics, so they may take a while to load. Word of warning: The most striking photos are not showed by default, so be sure to read the description below each one before clicking in the frame to see the picture. A couple ones really are not for the faint of heart, so proceed carefully.

Photo retouching: Before and after

It's not a secret that most photos in professional publications nowadays are retouched using the ubiquitous Photoshop, or similar photo editors. In his page, Glenn Feron exposes some of the work he did for his clients, showing us the retouched photo and the original one if we move the cursor over it.

Weight is lost, wrinkles disappear, breasts get bigger and, in general, everyone is younger in the hands of Glenn. The results sure are better than plastic surgery :P

How to get better pictures

Even if digital cameras are far easier to handle than traditional ones, Chris Foresman at Ars Technica teaches us a few tips on how to get the best out of that gorgeous new digital camera, and make better shots, complete with some graphical examples.

Seasoned photographers will probably not learn anything new, and a few ones are common sense (flash, blergh!), but with the commoditization of digital cameras, knowing how to make good photos sure come in handy.
via Fotografía Microsiervos and the Ars Technica feed

[Grorgy]

Thanks Lashiec, interesting, disturbing and also some fun stuff in that lot.

[Deozaan]

Incredible collection of photos for 2008!

Also, it's sad to have it reaffirmed how widespread retouching photos is to make models look good. It's kind of surprising sometimes to see the original photos and realize that some of the models really aren't that great looking.

[SKesselman]

Incredible collection of photos for 2008!

Also, it's sad to have it reaffirmed how widespread retouching photos is to make models look good. It's kind of surprising sometimes to see the original photos and realize that some of the models really aren't that great looking.

-Deozaan (December 19, 2008, 07:32 PM)

Yes, they are. They have to have a LOT going for them to be models in the first place. They're just not perfect. Nobody is.
Deozaan, and anyone else disappointed by what a model (or anyone else) looks like, study the before and after photos from websites of different photographers and editors! Study this topic until you can predict from the after photos what's been altered.

When you master that, you'll have gained a much better understanding of the female form. I assure you, you will not be disappointed again.

[Deozaan]

It's kind of surprising sometimes to see the original photos and realize that some of the models really aren't that great looking.

-Deozaan (December 19, 2008, 07:32 PM)

Yes, they are. They have to have a LOT going for them to be models in the first place. They're just not perfect. Nobody is.
Deozaan, and anyone else disappointed by what a model (or anyone else) looks like, study the before and after photos from websites of different photographers and editors! Study this topic until you can predict from the after photos what's been altered.

When you master that, you'll have gained a much better understanding of the female form. I assure you, you will not be disappointed again.

-SKesselman (December 20, 2008, 12:01 AM)

Perhaps I should clarify.

I'm not disappointed by how they look before being touched up. I'm disappointed that most women seem to think that the retouched model is what they should use to judge their own looks by.

The reality instead appears to suggest that most of these "models" are "average" looking. And what I mean by that is that it appears as though in my normal daily life, I could come across several many women who look "as good" as these models do before they're touched up, if not "better looking" than them.

I'm not disappointed by the women's natural looks. I'm disappointed that we've been convinced that women aren't beautiful enough as they are, but instead need to cover themselves up with makeup and even after that digitally "retouch" photographs to "improve" their appearances.

[Curt]

You will primarily have to give "thanks" to Playboy, MTV, and Hollywood, (etcetera), - I honestly believe these have done more bad than good, when it comes to women's picture of the ideal woman. Well, let me speak frankly, they have perverted our image of womanhood!



Just to show how perverted "we" are: My personal favourite is Jessica Rabbit...

1230x1024, 643 KB:

On photography


- but, of course, she can't help it, she was drawn that way!

 

[SKesselman]

Just to show how perverted "we" are: My personal favourite is Jessica Rabbit...
1230x1024, 643 KB:
 (see attachment in previous post)

- but, of course, she can't help it, she was drawn that way!

 

-Curt (January 24, 2009, 05:34 AM)

Perverse? Hardly...who doesn't just love Jessica Rabbit?
She's stunning fantasy art, nothing wrong with that.

In commercial photography, even the lifts, nips and tucks, for better or for worse, are to be expected. They're just pictures, anyway, and most men (my age and older) don't expect us to look like that in real life.

What really helped prompt my response to this topic was when I saw (in the initial post) things like muscle tone, details in legs and knees being airbrushed out, skin tones being brightened and smoothed out way, way past natural. That was a little strange IMHO.