so-called 'portrait professional' software ethics

[TXForester]

This is an example what I had to compete against. Hold the mouse over the image and it will show you a before and after.

http://www.thephotoenhancer.com/

(I'm not affiliated in any way with the photographer, just showing what "glitz" is.)

Poor girl. The before is bad enough (don't like child pageants), but after reminds me of ads for the Bride of Chucky movie. Makes me want to poke out my mind's eye.

 

[tbarker13]

A glitz photographer's reputation is built on "wins". When a photo wins photogenic, especially overall photogenic, pageant moms will hunt you down to have you take their daughter's head shot. The thing is, you can't afford to sell a 8x10 head shot without some kind of enhancement because you need that shot to win. Moms have told me that they have requested no glitz on their daughter's portraits and when they pick it up, it was done anyway. A few glitz photographers will not give the customer a choice.

And those 8x10 head shots, with enhancements, will run $500 with hair and makeup.

In pageants, head shots are not just judged on the girl pictured. The style, pose, and quality of the photographer's work also comes into play for points.

That's amazing.

 

[jwc57]

That's amazing.

I had a shot go down in flames because the judges didn't like the back drop I used. I offered to reshoot the girl for free. The moral of the story was don't try something different.

The show "Toddlers and Tiaras" is overly dramatic, and (edit) I've worked with a couple of moms that have been on the show, but only at the event level. I seen a couple of my girls on the show, but I'm sure they had to get a more "glitzy" shot for those pageants.

My wife calls them "hoochie-koochie" shots.

 

[f6andBthere]

I had a shot go down in flames because the judges didn't like the back drop I used. I offered to reshoot the girl for free. The moral of the story was don't try something different.

The show "Toddlers and Tiaras" is overly dramatic, but I've worked with a couple of moms that have been on the show, but only at the event level. I seen a couple of my girls on the show, but I'm sure they had to get a more "glitzy" shot for those pageants.

My wife calls them "hoochie-koochie" shots.

Thanks for the insight into this world ... fascinating!

These kids that get dragged into this stuff must have a lot of trouble keeping their feet on the ground, though may grow into well balanced adults ... or not!

 

[Reddot9]

Sometimes I can't help but laugh. I wonder which is more absurd. The software that make a face look that way or people who actually want to look that way. Give me a real wrinkle or a line in a face anytime.

 

[gavinlg]

http://www.thephotoenhancer.com/

What the **** am I looking at!?

 

[f6andBthere]

From memory that particular child was in Australia a while ago to promote a downunder pageant for children. It was besieged by protestors I was pleased to say and maybe the organisers will have second thoughts next time ... though probably not if history follows it's usual path.

Ultimately we seem to follow US trends in this country! 🙁

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Where's that damn "like" button...

😀


And don't get me started on make-up!

 

[lynnb]

As with any software, it can be overdone. But used sparingly and judiciously, there's no difference to using this software and having your model use make-up competently, and using good lighting when taking the picture. Just because the whole plasticky android tool collection is in the box doesn't mean you have to use them.

I've just purchased Portrait Professional (it's 50% off at the moment) after reading this - not to turn my subjects into pieces of plastic, but to achieve in seconds what takes me quite a lot longer in LR and CS.

This is my first play with the software - I've only had it for minutes - yes this first quick example is overdone as I was just exploring what it can do, but since the controls allow all effects to be dialled back as far as you want, I can see it allows very good control over things like fill light, shadows, colour and obvious blemish removal. It's potentially a useful tool. I'm happy to have it in my software toolbox.

by lynnb on Flickr

 

[Bill Clark]

This has been going on for a long, long time.

Do you think the statues made by the ancient Greek & Romans were true to life?

Do the painters reflect people accurately? Try looking at the scenes in the Sistene Chapel and tell me that's an accurate depicition.

I don't want to carry this on too much, but would cosmetics applied on a persons face be an accurate depiction?

Where do you draw the line?

I seem to get good comments from clients I work on. Most of the clients that hire me (in America at least) want to look thinner, younger and sexier.

Take a peek here:

http://listverse.com/2007/10/19/top-15-manipulated-photographs/

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/

How about dat!

 

[hepcat]

3. I am not certain I believe that unreasonable standards of beauty is overall as damaging to our society as people believe. I will say that eating disorders are very serious but those are psychological problems, and those are usually some combination of environmental and genetic factors and not really something that can be blamed on the wholly unrealistic photographs on the cover of vogue... or poor food standards/culture, or self-endangering political standards which have caused our countries medical system to essentially fail us...

Interesting perspective, and a common one. I have to take issue with it. This is an area that is so misunderstood by the general public that I feel compelled to put a little factual information out there, hopefully to help you understand the damage this kind of imaging is doing in our society, and to at least get a little factual information out there about eating disorders.

Eating disorders are only now being seriously researched because of the sudden seemingly-epidemic number of people suffering from them, and they're not yet well understood. The medical and psychiatric communities' treatment of eating disorders is barbaric and akin to blood letting and leach-therapy. "Modern medicine" is killing eating disorder patients at an unprecedented rate. Eating disorders are one of the leading causes of death in youngsters (at least in the U.S.)

Anorexia, while manifesting psychological symptoms, appears to be treatable through balancing nutrition and supplements. It is NOT a psychological disorder, yet mainstream treatment programs are based on psychotherapy. And its interesting that almost none of the patients ever recover under current therapies, particularly in the U.S.

Current research is showing eating disorders to be based, at least partially, on nutrient deficiencies. Some limited studies are showing that treatment for zinc deficiency seems to be a promising therapy for anorexia. In the U.S., we're poisoning ourselves with food additives like bromine (see bromine toxicity.) In one small study of emergency committals for schizophrenia, 20% walked out of the facility symptom-free after detox for toxic bromine levels. Our collective diet, while rich in bulk, is essentially nutrient-free. Obesity has just been declared a "disease" in the U.S.? The 'food pyramid' as it's been taught in the U.S. since WWI was based on nothing scientific, and mostly on what it takes to keep a soldier alive and fighting.

The images of 'perfection' that bombard youngsters as young as 3 and 4 are outrageous. Those pageant photos are, frankly, criminal. We're not letting kids be kids, and that damage is showing culturally through teen suicides, eating disorders, and a huge increase in treatment for all kinds of damaging psychological disorders.

This is a grave issue that is not, of course, going to be solved on a photo equipment forum, but when these issues are brought to the forefront, and then easily and summarily dismissed as they are by the majority of the mainstream public, I think that it's important that they be discussed a little more in-depth.

I agree that a photo on the cover of Vogue isn't going to have much effect, but when every other ad on TV and print media is for weight loss plans, and every image that we're bombarded with on TV, billboards, magazines, and every photo on the internet is manipulated heavily, those images do in fact have an impact on the way individuals view themselves, particularly pre-teens and teens who struggle for self-image anyway.

 

[Sparrow]

This has been going on for a long, long time.

Do you think the statues made by the ancient Greek & Romans were true to life?

Do the painters reflect people accurately? Try looking at the scenes in the Sistene Chapel and tell me that's an accurate depicition.

I don't want to carry this on too much, but would cosmetics applied on a persons face be an accurate depiction?

Where do you draw the line?

I seem to get good comments from clients I work on. Most of the clients that hire me (in America at least) want to look thinner, younger and sexier.

Take a peek here:

http://listverse.com/2007/10/19/top-15-manipulated-photographs/

http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/lincoln-calhoun-composite/

How about dat!

... so you would consider most Americans to be delusional then?

BTW the Greek and Roman sculptural aesthetic, and intent for that matter, are quite different ... but you can't be expected to know that 🙂

 

[sojournerphoto]

It doesn't really matter to me whether they are more attractive before or after 'Portrait Professional' does its 'work'. The key is that it is a clear attempt to make a dishonest presentation. That this is now both accepted, expected and normalised in a very wide range of circles, doesn't make it right.

It also reflects our obsession with 'perfection' and an increasingly narrow view of what is acceptable. WHilst we, culturally, claim to accept all sorts, abortion rates and the attitudes of medical staff at ultrasound screenings give lie to this.

A big step, but one that I think has some validity. Very immature with real consequences.

Mike

 

[68degrees]

I--- the ads show befores and afters of many women --- am I the only one who thinks all the befores are much more attractive than the afters?
danny

Ive thought the same thing myself. its just another one of those things they do to try and train us , socially engineer us what to like and what to think is good and bad.

 

[djonesii]

the key to using the product is restraint ....

the key to using the product is restraint ....

When I have the time in the studio, I can do wonders with a good Make Up artist, and lighting .....

When I snap a photo of my son and mother-in-law, I have no such luxury.

A few easy moves with the slider, and red splotches go away, teeth get a bit whiter, irises pop ... that is, wrinkles smooth just a bit .... everyone is happy!

I NEVER turn on the face shape options!

for me, I'd just rather not spend the time in Photo shop, it runs direct from light room, and with the before after views, it's easy to tell when I have hit too much or just right.

It's WAY TOO easy to go over the top with this tool.

Dave

 

[Brian Legge]

djonesii, that was my impression looking at lynnbs example. A makeup artist, slightly more polished lighting and some standard curve adjustments would generate similar results.

I don't do much portrait work but I totally get the appeal based on lynnbs post. That is similar to the type of post production I've done in Photoshop/Gimp/Lightroom/etc in the past. Its time consuming.

 

[lynnb]

hepcat, thanks for an interesting post. Eating disorders are a significant problem here in Australia, too.

It doesn't really matter to me whether they are more attractive before or after 'Portrait Professional' does its 'work'. The key is that it is a clear attempt to make a dishonest presentation. That this is now both accepted, expected and normalised in a very wide range of circles, doesn't make it right.

It also reflects our obsession with 'perfection' and an increasingly narrow view of what is acceptable. WHilst we, culturally, claim to accept all sorts, abortion rates and the attitudes of medical staff at ultrasound screenings give lie to this.

A big step, but one that I think has some validity. Very immature with real consequences.

Mike

Mike, all photo retouching produces a dishonest result. Sometimes retouching is desirable and appreciated, such as where the subject has had a breakout of bad pimples which are unmasked or poorly masked by make-up; or where the subject is embarrassed by some feature they have no control over. Think of wedding group shots, or a portrait which is intended to show a person at their best, rather than how they were on that particular day. And sometimes it is very far from desirable, when young women in particular feel the need to achieve some impossible goal of perfection - as you said, when perfection is normalised - and spend lots of money and undergo trauma in cosmetic surgery when there was no need to.

I am not comfortable changing the shape of people's facial features but would consider it if the subject argued there was some genuine benefit to be had. Consider a girl constantly bullied at school for the size of her nose. She suffers continual psychological abuse because of it. Perhaps considers self harm. Would you not make some small adjustments in a photo she wanted, that would reflect how she sees herself? In the rush to condemn wide scale retouching in the media that results in a wave of body image insecurity amongst image conscious teens, there are also circumstances in which I think it can genuinely help vulnerable people. Just like maxillofacial surgery is a wonderful development to help people with deformities. No one would suggest such people continue to live with the social consequences of their deformity rather than have it corrected.

This is not a black and white issue.

I like to make portraits of older women - I have several beautiful women friends who are in their 60s-80s. While I like to see their smile and age lines and all the character in their faces in my portraits, when I offer them a print they are unhappy with what they see. In their own minds they are still as young as they always were. This software can soften the ravages of time and help them to feel the way they do inside. I think that's very understandable and a reasonable and kind thing to do. I am happy to help them feel good about themselves. Of course I don't want to overdo it - the result has to look reasonable and natural. No-one would suggest I use a heavy hand.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

For me it is Photography vs. Graphic Image. People know. Who is the purchaser fooling other than themselves. When they show the image to someone less the moles and skinner does the viewer not see it? Essentially, when you photograph people how often do you hear: I don't photograph well or something of the sort. Most people hate their faces. I was reading a book about Marilyn Monroe as photographed by Eve Arnold (not too shabby a photographer). Marilyn Monroe had exclusive control of what images of herself could be released. Arnold explained that she thought Marilyn was average looking but had a masterful control of her portraits thereby making her look beautiful. (I am not agreeing.) But, if Marilyn Monroe did not think she was beautiful can you blame the rest of the population for wanting graphic enhancement?

 

[felix5616]

Mirrors our politicians

Mirrors our politicians

Portrait professional is to beauty like politicians are to honesty, its all an illusion that the public swallows hook, line and sinker. Its a case of style trumping substance, exactly whats wrong with the world.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

agree that a photo on the cover of Vogue isn't going to have much effect, but when every other ad on TV and print media is for weight loss plans, and every image that we're bombarded with on TV, billboards, magazines, and every photo on the internet is manipulated heavily, those images do in fact have an impact on the way individuals view themselves, particularly pre-teens and teens who struggle for self-image anyway.

While I don't agree with everything you've written in that particular post, I very strongly agree with that last paragraph.

Unfortunately, it seems to me, the one human trait that makes us the most successful mammal on the planet, is also our greatest weakness: trainability. In this particular case, we are training a large proportion of our young to aspire for an impossible goal and the manipulation of images is a very large part of that scourge.

As to a solution? I wish I could think of a practical one that would not offer more dangerous side effects than the disease.