Photovision Coverpage

oshead

Is it just me of does anyone else think the PP on this young ladys face is just awful. Her skin looks totally fake. I got it in snail mail about a month ago and have to say it looks even worse in print.

Is this what the industry as a whole is pushing as standard face retouch?

Fajitas!

It's a bit terrifying, isn't it?

K_user

It kinda reminds me of a program I saw on TV about men who pay alot of money for life like dolls...freaky...

But seriously, this was the best that they could do?

Nisio

is there any flip side to this trend of photoshopping faces, like young CEOs asking for wrinkles to look like they have more experience?

leche solara

she has a nice mouth all the same

Thecageyone

Seen worse, and it's hardly anything new. Air-brushing has been around for donkey's years. It's funny that nobody likes this type of processing, but yet they continue to push it, thinking 'perfection = great photo' - and they just end up making it look almost like CGI.

mrboswell

K_user wrote: »

It kinda reminds me of a program I saw on TV about men who pay alot of money for life like dolls...freaky...

But seriously, this was the best that they could do?

Yea remember that - very freaky...

She also has that blank "I'm doing a poo" face

Paulw

leche solara wrote: »

she has a nice mouth all the same

But, is it actually her mouth??? It's probably been enhanced too.

You would probably walk by this girl in the street and not notice her from that pict.

Thecageyone

her upper lip definitely looks altered.

Borderfox

All the glossy magazines are full of this albeit to a much higher standard, it wont be long till you get the small text in the corner similar to the mascara ads "this picture doesnt even look like the model anymore" along with "styled with lash inserts and enhanced in post production"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

It kinda reminds me of a program I saw on TV about men who pay alot of money for life like dolls...freaky...

But seriously, this was the best that they could do?

On a tangentially related note, I saw this a while back and thought it was great ...

Lars and the Real Girl.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

K_user

Holy crap!

No matter how often I see that sort of thing, it still amazes me.

Fajitas!

All the glossy magazines are full of this albeit to a much higher standard, it wont be long till you get the small text in the corner similar to the mascara ads "this picture doesnt even look like the model anymore" along with "styled with lash inserts and enhanced in post production"

Yes, yes, I'm pretty sure we all know it's in every form of print out there, but what I think is more worrying is the quality - For a professional photographic trade show, one would assume the quality would be an exemplary image, showing off the best the show has to offer. Unless it is doing that. I really hope that's not what it's doing.

Thecageyone

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

On a tangentially related note, I saw this a while back and thought it was great ...

Lars and the Real Girl.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

That is a good movie. There are people out there who like the 'plastic' look on their centre-folds out there.

But, these techniques should never be used to showcase photography. It's like those CGI flicks that try to make the characters as human-like as possible, yet never quite get it right. Why don't they just use real actors!? Animation should be OTT and real should ... well, real.

dave66

Fajitas! wrote: »

Yes, yes, I'm pretty sure we all know it's in every form of print out there, but what I think is more worrying is the quality - For a professional photographic trade show, one would assume the quality would be an exemplary image, showing off the best the show has to offer. Unless it is doing that. I really hope that's not what it's doing.

I seem to recall my wife recently pointing out that some TV ad had one of those foot notes that the image had been adjusted! Can't recall what the product was.

leche solara

Cheryl Cole's L'Oreal shampoo ad has a small print disclaimer saying that she has hair extensions, which means that the hair that we're seeing is unnatural and L'Oreal can't take credit for the way it looks.