Author Topic: The "Photoshop" argument  (Read 4537 times)

Indy

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1291
  • -Receive: 11322
  • Posts: 4486
The "Photoshop" argument
« on: February 18, 2017, 04:47:11 pm »
Hey guys, I just wanted to voice my opinion about something that's been bothering me a lot lately.

What I often read is that a model often photoshops her pictures, and that this is a bad thing.
I really have to counter some of those arguments because it's getting on my nerves.

First of all though: Yes, one can use photoshop too much, distorting reality, and I do understand that when someone uses photoshop to really stretch out the boobs to make them look bigger, or make her waist look smaller, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Taking things too far is never a good thing.

However, there are quite a few things that we need to keep in mind, and a lot of girls got blamed for using photoshop too much, while there wasn't even photoshop involved.
Keep in mind that, when taking pictures, we all want to look our best. People put on make up, position the camera in the right angle, everyone tries to look their best.
And a good photographer, can make any picture look photoshopped without even using it.

I can name a few examples where models have been blamed to use photoshop, to such a level where the model even got scolded for it, and no photoshop work was even involved!

Example 1: People comparing a pictureset with a video.
I've seen it before, people comparing a photograph of a model with a screenshot from a video, a video that was taken at the same time as the pictureset. Complaining how much the model photoshopped herself, about how much more toned she looks.
Here's the thing: Using a flash when taking a picture, creates very hard shadows. Showing muscles more prominently. When using softboxes for flashes, evens out the skin a bit more, making it look more smooth.
This isn't photoshopping, it's just good photography. Combine this with good poses, because the photographer is of course going to throw away the bad poses. You cannot compare this to a video that was taken the same time. There's no flash for every frame, and no perfect posing, you just cannot compare this.

Example 2: Comparing public amateur content with pro content.
Models are people too, and they visit public places as well. Sometimes, people make snapshots with their phones or action cams when a model isn't watching. You'll catch a bad angle, or even worse, you have a fish eye lens like most phones have, and when she's not in the middle of the picture, she'd look stretched (or... fat). That gives a very distorted picture from an angle she did not pose for. That's also a very unfair comparison.

Example 3: Using wide-angle lenses on pro-content.
Last example also goes the other way around. Some models work a lot on getting their boobs closer to the camera, making them look relatively bigger. This is commonly done, but this effect fades away when using a video camera from other angles, or seeing this girl in person. It creates a different expectation that the model cannot live up to. You could argue that she called this on herself, but sometimes it's a necessity. Most videos and pictures are taken in small rooms. Wide angle lenses are needed or she won't fit in the entire picture. Most model photographers don't even have zoom lenses, because you're not gonna photograph people from far away. Most of thos lenses just are wide-angle.

So, the thing I'm trying to say here:
Most girls try to look their best, and sometimes it even looks photoshopped. But in many cases, this is just good camerawork, and in some cases, it's an unintended side effect. But reality is a lot different. But the same goes for wearing makeup, or wearing fancy clothes. Everyone wants to look their best.
I'm not condoning excessive photoshopping, but sometimes people get blamed for it while they don't even do this. So cut the girls some slack.
They're here for your enjoyment, so... enjoy!
I want something good to die for, to make it beautiful to live.

nayan2k9

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1880
  • -Receive: 17
  • Posts: 30
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2017, 09:43:37 pm »
Good points. But I think most people are complaining about is the overuse of Photoshop. If I'm paying for photos, then I'd like to see what the model actually looks lie, not an 'artist's impression' of that...

Daddy Vlad

  • your grace
  • Donor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 315
  • -Receive: 1419
  • Posts: 1131
    • Fetlife
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2017, 05:17:36 am »
Personally I will always acknowledge that I touch up my girl's photos, but I never intend to extract profit from her image. At any rate, I don't double her breast size, and if she were selling content, doing so would be fraud. It's one thing to "polish" things up, as in any marketing, but there's a point in modeling where it's not much different than advertising a 12-pack of booze and actually producing 6-packs. No question it is more "grey" an area when it comes to something like "art", but since the advent of photoshop, blatant deception is certainly more commonplace.

Lloyd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 94
  • -Receive: 993
  • Posts: 1691
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2017, 09:07:59 pm »
My problem with it is when the photo:
           
           1. Does not resemble reality, i.e. smoothing removes any type of definition from the skin or makes it look like a cartoon or a drawing not a photo.
           2. It makes the model almost unrecognizable that if you met them in real life you would never know it was that model, makeup or not.
           3. Exaggerates body parts where they are double (or half) the size they actually are.  For me this includes arms and teeth, along with the other usual edited body parts.
           

The problem now it seems is that the onus is no longer on the model to look good but on the photographer's photoshop abilities.  This is not just me saying this but some models I know who work hard at the gym and with their skin care, etc., who are annoyed with other models showing up expecting the photographer to do all the work.

ModBellsBod

  • Star Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ********
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 17
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 25
    • My Get Cosmetic listing
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2017, 07:16:48 pm »
This is all pretty interesting, I'd love to see a poll of what people prefer.

No Photoshop at all
Some blemish fixing
Some waist slimming or boob up-sizing
Full on morph shots

I know a poll like that's not prefect as where you got the pic from makes a big difference eg no-ones gonna be mad that a pic from the morph section has used Photoshop lol but I'd love to see something like that.

nayan2k9

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1880
  • -Receive: 17
  • Posts: 30
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 08:30:56 pm »
Some blemish fixing is fine.

Daddy Vlad

  • your grace
  • Donor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 315
  • -Receive: 1419
  • Posts: 1131
    • Fetlife
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2017, 02:55:42 am »
Exactly... blemish fixing is completely acceptable since not every day is a good skin day, etc.

However, it's not really about what people "prefer". Either marketing is honest or it's not. If it's not marketing, then everyone is free to stick with what they like. Some prefer raw imagery, some prefer extreme morphing. We don't need rules on taste.

Arie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1813
  • -Receive: 1722
  • Posts: 1986
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2017, 01:20:40 pm »
I have a split opinion on this, and I can't figure it out. On one hand I'd say I prefer a somewhat honest representation of how the model (or amateur) looks. Especially if they claim not to edit their pics. On the other hand the picture serves a function: Enjoyment for the viewer. Wether you just like to look at the pic, share it, fap to it whatever, it is meant to be enjoyed. So in that case ignorance is bliss, since enhanced pictures arguably provide more joy. It's not like you'll ever meet the depicted person and be disappointed by reality. When it comes to dating or escorts this is ofc. a way bigger problem because you are being tricked into spending money. Some people feel the same when they pay for digital content, but since there is not the disappointment of a reality check, is it really a scam?
General laws of fake boobage:
1) Fake boobs should not bring unnecessary health risks
2) Fake boobs should look as beautiful as possible, unless this breaks rule 1
3) Fake boobs should be as big as possible, unless this breaks rules 1 and 2

Daddy Vlad

  • your grace
  • Donor
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 315
  • -Receive: 1419
  • Posts: 1131
    • Fetlife
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2017, 02:32:31 pm »
If their doorways and mirrors are all curvy there's no ignorance. True, it's not exactly a scam if it's plain as day, I just won't even look further.

The only significant integrity issue is when every single photo is morphed and they are selling video which of course isn't. This model Elle Matthews has morphed ads plastered all over our site... in fact I can't log in without seeing them. If you click on it you go straight to the membership sales and without digging around for videos you would have no idea you are being BS'd. Not that I really feel that bad for somebody spending money in haste, but it's dishonest, pure and simple.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 03:08:44 am by vertiggo »

KwukDuck

  • Administrator
  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6003
  • -Receive: 7231
  • Posts: 5540
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2017, 08:02:59 pm »
This is all pretty interesting, I'd love to see a poll of what people prefer.

No Photoshop at all
Some blemish fixing
Some waist slimming or boob up-sizing
Full on morph shots

I know a poll like that's not prefect as where you got the pic from makes a big difference eg no-ones gonna be mad that a pic from the morph section has used Photoshop lol but I'd love to see something like that.



It's easy to create polls yourself from any forum on the top-right.

Personally I prefer no photoshop distortions, one can play around with light and shadows to get certain effects but it doesn't distort how the model actually looks.

On the other hand I do appreciate photoshop a lot as it allows us to visualize our goals or ideals better.

In the past i've made several morphs, none had the goal to show how the model looked, it was merely an expression of what i would like to see in reality (without any photoshopping required ;)).

ModBellsBod

  • Star Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ********
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 17
  • -Receive: 8
  • Posts: 25
    • My Get Cosmetic listing
Re: The "Photoshop" argument
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2017, 10:04:00 pm »
That's true, I would love to see a morph of me just to see what it might look like.

Tags: