The Evils of Photoshop

[Steve M.]

I saw this strange article in the Washington Post, itself a rather strange newspaper, and thought I'd share it.

The subject matter is a little stale (photographers have been making models look unrealistically beautiful as far back as the soft-filter film days of Playboy and Penthouse), but I couldn't help wondering about the photo they chose to show. Here's a very attractive woman in a stunning outfit, standing on a nice train platform, while in the background there's a very oddly juxtaposed and unattractive industrial area, complete w/ the tail end of a bus caught passing during the shoot. Jeez, haven't these folks ever heard of Photoshop?

It sorta looks like they decided to put two images together, because the lighting and color of the background is nothing like it is on the platform. And then there's the yellow business sign in the background, while everything else is shaded blue. I wonder if the whole shot isn't a composite of Photoshopped elements? That model looks a little too 3-D-ish. Anyway, it's weird. It seems that they could have done so much more with such an attractive model and a knock out dress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-rep-who-proposed-this-anti-photoshop-act/

 

[Sparrow]

... it just looks like mixed lighting in a mediocre photo to me

 

[bsdunek]

The introduced Act could become dangerous though. Camel's Nose Under the Tent, etc.

 

[dogberryjr]

I see what you mean, there's something odd about the placement of her foot; it looks like she's hovering.

 

[Takkun]

I'm not the biggest Leibowitz fan, but I like this style of photo and it's interesting seeing more fashion shoots looking less like movie sets (though sometimes I'll pick up a a magazine and some of the ads are truly bizarre).

I guess the point is that, famous photographer or not, it's SOP to retouch the models for magazines. I don't know.

 

[Berth]

Annie Leibovitz is mediocre? The Washington Post is a strange newspaper?


Uh....

nevermind.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Weird written article.
I'm PS free as amateur, but I don't see anything wrong with commercial use of it.
Like Annie's portraits, BTW.

 

[Sparrow]

Annie Leibovitz is mediocre? The Washington Post is a strange newspaper?


Uh....

nevermind.

... Annie no (I don't think I said that btw) ... that photo? well yes, not her best work, sorry

 

[YYV_146]

The lighting setup here is obviously flawed. As others have pointed out, the strong fill-in makes the model look suspended above the ground.

But IMO darkening the bottom of the image by about 1/2 stops may make it look a bit better...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It seems to me like a move back to the fashion photography of the 'fifties and 'sixties, where the clothing was the centre of attention and the model had no purpose other than to present it as well as possible.

In that context, the background makes good sense, contrasting the bright colours of the coat well.

Who knows? As our cousins say: "what goes around, comes around". Perhaps the next big thing will be line art of the clothes being sold. An opening for Stewart, methinks.

 

[djhurley92]

badly cropped by a sub

 

[Ranchu]

Yeah, she's having other people crop for her. Hilarious. I like this picture, except for the tilt. The 3d is from the light, I don't doubt it was intentional. I'm not seeing the photoshop. I don't really think Leibowitz has an equal when it comes to this kind of portrait.

 

[djhurley92]

Uncropped, less busy, and the eye is drawn towards the model properly, IMO. From something that looks like it fell out of instagram to a proper portrait!

When I've submitted work to newspapers / news sites before, they drag the image into a pre-existing image template with a totally different aspect ratio and sometimes orientation, and will just leave it however it ends up without even attempting to rearrange it within the space they've decided to work with.

 

[Ranchu]

Ok, I see your point. Sad that people feel they can just crop someone's work like that. I'd sue.

 

[Steve M.]

OK, the Washington Post is a crappy, terrible newspaper that wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the back end. I wouldn't believe a word they print. That's closer to the truth, but strange seemed to be enough. But, we're off track here.

I like the style of the photo too, warts and all. Unfortunately, I don't think the photographer could sue anyone if it was a cut and paste job. The last time I did any commercial work, on the back of my check were the terms giving them all rights to the photo to do as they wished with. The minute I signed the ck, that was that. Having an unsigned ck wasn't going to do me a lot of good, so.....they may have been unethical crooks, but they weren't stupid, unethical crooks. Ah, the wonderful wonderful world of marketing and ad agencies. Made being a starving artist look pretty good.

 

[philosli]

IMHO, this is a very interesting portrait, a very clever play of color: yellow on her dress, echoed by the yellow tactile paving on the ground, the sunset sky in the distance, and of course the background yellow sign. Leibowitz has her magic.

 

[DougFord]

I really like this shot, the composition is excellent. (Strip away the color)
I'm a sucker for diagonals in a composition and they work exceedingly well, imo, in this image.
So the issue becomes, for me, the use of color. Specifically the color yellow. Yellow in the dress, platform, sign and horizon.
In the end it's a shot for commercial purpose, it needs to attract the eye. In this context, I think its an excellent image.

 

[Keith]

It has a slightly cross processed look to me which I quite like and I'm also a fan of Leibovitz and her work in all areas she explores and has explored over the years.

I also agree with Doug Ford that it's a good composition.

 

[KenR]

Bruce Davidson

Bruce Davidson

Sorry, the backround is not Photoshopped in - it's just real-live Queens, NY. The picture is sort of a tribute to a famous Bruce Davidson photo done in the 60's. Just Google "Bruce Davidson Subway Platform" and you'll see the original.

 

[hepcat]

Back to the actual point of the article for a moment; the idea of legislating how much an image can be altered is a fool's errand. As has been pointed out, all imaging is contrived to some extent. The idea, while noble, is misguided.

Education in the press, fashion, and modeling industries on what a "healthy" body shape looks like will do much more than trying to legislate against something. And resources should be directed towards disordered eating research. Eating disorders are one of the fastest growing causes of death in young people... scary stuff.