so-called 'portrait professional' software ethics

Software like the one mentioned is absolutely rubbish - makes people look horrendously fake.

Proper skin PP is pretty skillful and it's difficult to tell it's been done most of the time. Either way I don't like any kind of skin softening in any instance personally - it' just cheapens everything.
 
I think it has a lot to do with lack of maturity. As a teen and 20 something, I saw a much narrower range of people as attractive. As I've matured, I see a lot wider range of people as attractive. I'm getting away from being brainwashed and going towards appreciating the diversity of humanity.

Also, real people don't look like clothing store dummies. They have pores. :)
 
Does this mean that, when guests come over, it's ethically wrong to clean up the house because they're coming over?
 
It's up to the person who wants his/her portrait taken to decide between fantasy and reality, or anywhere between. It's just another tool. We can use PS and Lightroom, but we cannot use this software ? According to which criterium ? Personally I much prefer caracter portraits that show the beauty and maturity of a person, including imperfections. But I downloaded the trial software, experimented and bought the 'professional' version today, and I'll use it with the senior portraits I'll be taking, and they'll love it.
 
Portraits are supposed to be flattering? I guess I should thank Portrait Professional for expanding my world view. Someone better tell Lucien Freud!
 
1. a photo is a lie whether it's manipulated or not, even if only by omission

2. I had a few friends in high school who had their portraits done and they looked absolutely nothing like the person, yet they were really happy with them. Also, in the part of Texas I was living in boob jobs were a popular high school graduation present (no, Im sadly not kidding or exaggerating).

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. I think a far more damaging standard is the absolute refusal to acknowledge the sexuality of human beings that pervades the south and has resulted in unnecessarily high rates of teenage pregnancy, unhealthy births and STDs. standards get a lot of play because they make people feel bad, primarily, and make a very few number of people sick compared to the afforementioned issue, or poor food standards/culture, or self-endangering political standards which have caused our countries medical system to essentially fail us.

3a. real breasts are always and without exception better than the perfect ones in magazines, assuming all are attached to women.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Does this mean that, when guests come over, it's ethically wrong to clean up the house because they're coming over?
Click to expand...

No.
But it's ethically questionable to sell software that can make the appearance that your house is clean; but it's really not.
 
I own this software and I will do a before and after proof for some clients. They always pick the enhanced portrait. I turn it down, it has sliders to increase or lessen the effect. I always turn off the face modeling feature.

I began using it for pageant work. I didn't want to do the head shots called glitz, but I had to use something to compete with that in some way.

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.)
 
redisburning said:
.............................. 3a. real breasts are always and without exception better than the perfect ones in magazines, assuming all are attached to women.
Click to expand...

Not so sure. Every year I photograph the gay pride parade in Orlando. There are some transvestite queens there who would lead one to believe that today's plastic surgery is able to create the "perfect breasts" better by starting from scratch rather than modifying nature. It is a matter of definition if they are attached to men or women.

FWIW, I am a vagina man, personally.
 
jwc57 said:
I own this software and I will do a before and after proof for some clients. They always pick the enhanced portrait. I turn it down, it has sliders to increase or lessen the effect. I always turn off the face modeling feature.

I began using it for pageant work. I didn't want to do the head shots called glitz, but I had to use something to compete with that in some way.

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.)
Click to expand...


That image is disurbing on so many levels ... which includes the thread subject of enhancement and the whole can of worms regarding beauty pageants for children.

We are a sick society ... sorry but that image all but spoiled my day.

That's not to say that I disagree with your points though.
 
f6andBthere said:
That image is disurbing on so many levels ... which includes the thread subject of enhancement and the whole can of worms regarding beauty pageants for children.

We are a sick society ... sorry but that image all but spoiled my day.

That's not to say that I disagree with your points though.
Click to expand...

I got out of it in 2010 and honestly, I doubt my business will survive unless I go back. I am too well known in my area for pageant photography and "natural" head shots. Wedding photography, which I cut out to make room for pageants, has changed considerably. I just can't seem to adjust to the idea of $2000 and 1000 images.
 
jwc57 said:
I own this software and I will do a before and after proof for some clients. They always pick the enhanced portrait. I turn it down, it has sliders to increase or lessen the effect. I always turn off the face modeling feature.

I began using it for pageant work. I didn't want to do the head shots called glitz, but I had to use something to compete with that in some way.

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.)
Click to expand...

That's really awful (to me). That child doesn't look human.
 
tbarker13 said:
That's really awful (to me). That child doesn't look human.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom