" Dove Commercial" Challenge, Expert Editing.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/29/2007 04:04:14 PM · #26

Originally posted by wavelength:

The PDF talks almost exclusively about how women view themselves against the beauty industries accepted norms, not how us evil photographers are screwing up little girls psyches. It actually says that MOST women are happy with their bodies until you put them against this social ab-normal.

Ok. Who do you think defines and produces those "accepted norms"? It's not the fashion executives. They may say that they like or dislike something, but it's the photographers and graphic editors that do all of the work.

So, yes, it is exactly the "evil photographers".

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/29/2007 04:07:55 PM · #27

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Ok. Who do you think defines and produces those "accepted norms"?

Men - Madison Ave - Cash

KarenNfld

01/29/2007 04:11:27 PM · #28

Originally posted by robs:

If you are going to do an editing centric challenge then have a pool of - say - 5 images that can be chosen (or 1 even but might be a bit limiting). Those images would be stored somewhere in high-res with neutral settings. Then you could compare the editing between different people.

But this is a photography site, not a photoshop site. If you want to do that, go to Worth1000.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/29/2007 04:18:14 PM · #29

I like this idea but maybe just call it "Retouching" or "Retouching, Before and After"?

01/29/2007 04:22:17 PM · #30

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Ok. Who do you think defines and produces those "accepted norms"?

Men - Madison Ave - Cash

And the fact that many women are drawn to things that will make them look "beautiful". Ad agencies spend mucho money on what gets attention. Cosmo is full of altered photos, because women stop to look at them.

Us men don't have that problem. How many men's magazines do you see with men in the ads? ;-)

01/29/2007 04:23:28 PM · #31

Sure make a challenge after I already completed mine! lol.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/29/2007 04:24:10 PM · #32

Note to my last post: I don't have any issues with the challenge, but the naming is definitely a bad idea given the sociological goals of the Dove campaign.

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/29/2007 04:26:31 PM · #33

Why are you all missing the fact that the film actually shows MORE retouching before the photo than after? Are we supposed to shut down the cosmetics companies as well as sue Adobe for falsification of beauty?

The girl in the video changed much more due to the makeup artists and the hairdresser / cosmetologists than she did due to the graphic designer.

Blaming all this (whatever "this" is) on Photoshop is a little bit egocentric. Blaming it on the photographers - who get little or no credit for the work - is also largely undeserved.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/29/2007 04:33:58 PM · #34

I think we on this site enjoy the editing. I don't think we are trying to shut down anything, or say that editing is wrong.

When I was editing the shot I was thinking in my head that this girl is very beautiful, but some blemishes are hiding who she really is. For me it was a mission to show the world how beautiful she really is.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/29/2007 04:35:26 PM · #35

Originally posted by nards656:

I agree with what you're saying but I'd say the graphic designers did a little more. The makeup artists covered things up while the graphic designers played doctor and physically altered her body form.

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 16:36:17.

Brielle

01/29/2007 04:36:11 PM · #36

Originally posted by nards656:

Cept the makeup doesn't shave an inch off the law bone, or make the neck longer and thinner, or the eyes larger and eyebows higher. ;o)

I think its definitely a combination of factors. I like the idea of the challnge in so fa as showing editing though.

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 16:37:07.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/29/2007 04:39:44 PM · #37

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Us men don't have that problem. How many men's magazines do you see with men in the ads? ;-)

maybe you're just not reading the right magazines. ;)

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/29/2007 04:42:37 PM · #38

Originally posted by wavelength:

Stop questioning my motives, because you know nothing about me.

FWIW, I'm not questioning you, your motives, your family, or anything to do with you. I'm questioning the challenge you suggested. Those are two very separate things.

I'm just saying that their website is pretty clear that they feel this sort of photoshop work is a corruption of what they are suggesting is real beauty. It starts right from the link to the video that asks how 'our view of beauty got so distorted?' and runs as a clear theme through the photochallenge for pictures of ordinary women who are beautiful, the touring portrait exhibit of non-stereotyped views of beautiful women and so on, on every page of their campaign site.

A challenge to turn ordinary people into extra-ordinary people might well be interesting and instructive, but seems pretty clearly the complete opposite of the aims of the Dove campaign and as a few people have said in this thread, potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the people turned from ordinary to extraordinary.

I know from experience that 'fixing up' someone's photo and showing them the results often makes them feel that they need 'fixing up' in reality too. It is a sensitive subject for a lot of men & women. Making it the focus of a challenge and holding up the 'imperfect' before and 'fixed' after will take a fairly thick skin.

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 16:43:38.

01/29/2007 04:46:56 PM · #39

I agree with you about the sensative issue. I felt weird about removing the blemishes. I did it because I really wanted people to see the true person behind the skin impurities.

I am really 50/50 on this.

01/29/2007 04:47:41 PM · #40

Originally posted by Gordon:

I know from experience that 'fixing up' someone's photo and showing them the results often makes them feel that they need 'fixing up' in reality too. It is a sensitive subject for a lot of men & women. Making it the focus of a challenge and holding up the 'imperfect' before and 'fixed' after will take a fairly thick skin.

Definitely.

There's a bit of a "playing field" issue at work as well, but that exists in all challenges to some degree. Not everyone has a friend that needs that much fixing up. If you're trying to go from "bad" to "good", you need to have a bad to start from. Two photos using the same techniques will rate vastly different if the starting point for one of them is "worse."

(Gah, I feel like an asshole even typing that sentence out because I know how sensitive people are.)

01/29/2007 04:52:40 PM · #41

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by Gordon:
I know from experience that 'fixing up' someone's photo and showing them the results often makes them feel that they need 'fixing up' in reality too. It is a sensitive subject for a lot of men & women. Making it the focus of a challenge and holding up the 'imperfect' before and 'fixed' after will take a fairly thick skin.

Definitely.

There's a bit of a "playing field" issue at work as well, but that exists in all challenges to some degree. Not everyone has a friend that needs that much fixing up. If you're trying to go from "bad" to "good", you need to have a bad to start from. Two photos using the same techniques will rate vastly different if the starting point for one of them is "worse."

(Gah, I feel like an asshole even typing that sentence out because I know how sensitive people are.)

I hear that. One thing that I found with working with bands and artists however is that they need and want to look like a model. People don't buy music from a person full of blemishes. Sad but true. Escpecially women. The people I have been working with expect it to look like a magazine. Not shooting for realism, but for a popularity contest.

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 16:56:40.

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

01/29/2007 04:57:47 PM · #42

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Us men don't have that problem. How many men's magazines do you see with men in the ads? ;-)

maybe you're just not reading the right magazines. ;)

I'm not gonna lie... those magazines don't even need words ;-) I'm there for the visual gratification.

muckpond

Nikon D200

01/29/2007 04:58:48 PM · #43

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Us men don't have that problem. How many men's magazines do you see with men in the ads? ;-)

maybe you're just not reading the right magazines. ;)

I'm not gonna lie... those magazines don't even need words ;-) I'm there for the visual gratification.

...which is mostly provided by photoshop! (and conversation comes full circle.) :P

wavelength

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

01/29/2007 05:03:42 PM · #44

Originally posted by Gordon:

I think it is awesome that you can watch that Dove campaign video and come up with something so completely contrary to the message it is trying to promote.

Sorry, but this completely seems to question my intention for the challenge. This didn't leave much room for the rest of your comments to seem anything than utterly negative.

As for the rest: look this is the SAME thing that Dove is doing with their little video. Showing the before, and the after. How this can contradict their campaign when their campaign uses the same photo-alterations completely baffles me. Heck, you could even add in all the make-up and hair just like the vid.

The fact remians, the Dove campaign opens the eyes of viewer to what can and is already done to fashion pictures all the time, I don't see how you could say that this challenge would leave one less educated about the subject than before.

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 17:04:21.

Siggav

Nikon D80

01/29/2007 05:04:41 PM · #45

I think doing a challenge like that is a good idea. I don't really see it going against Dove's message either.

Especially since it would involve showing the "before" photos. That will really enhance just how manipulated and edited and unreal the "after" picture is. Which again can bring awareness about just how fake the pictures you see in most magazines are. Which is I think what the campaign was about, no?

There are masses of women out there who have no concept of what photography (angles, lighting etc.) and editing can do.

This wouldn't necessarely be showing going from bad to good, more really from human to plastic and when shown both most people I've talked to prefer the human.

There is definately a photographic challenge in there too because you need to take the right picture to give you the raw material to work with. Lighting, make up, hair, etc. is all very important.

So yeah.. bring it on :)

01/29/2007 05:08:56 PM · #46

Originally posted by wavelength:

As for the rest: look this is the SAME thing that Dove is doing with their little video. Showing the before, and the after. How this can contradict their campaign when their campaign uses the same photo-alterations completely baffles me. Heck, you could even add in all the make-up and hair just like the vid.

The fact remians, the Dove campaign opens the eyes of viewer to what can and is already done to fashion pictures all the time, I don't see how you could say that this challenge would leave one less educated about the subject than before.

Because the point of the Dove campaign is to show an example of what is _wrong_, not give examples of what should be done.

When PETA goes to a Mink farm to show how the animals are treated, they're not producing a training video. It would be a bad to name a "PETA Challenge" in which the goal was to mistreat an animal. It's the same thing.

Have the challenge. Call it something else. This challenge is the very epitome of what the Dove campaign is against. Yes, they did it in their video as an example - that doesn't mean they're for it.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/29/2007 05:11:15 PM · #47

Funny thing is I've picked up a habit of trying to pick out photoshop flaws in photos in magazines. I was looking at a Cover Girl add the other day and spotted a cloning problem.

Awareness of what can be done brings awareness of WHEN it is done. We all know that ads are PS'd but I doubt a lot of people are aware to what extent. Most DPCers are aware that portraits HERE are manipulated but again do they realize to what extent some of the high scoring portraits are processed?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/29/2007 05:11:24 PM · #48

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by wavelength:

It's not a campaign to abolish editing, it's a campaign to increase awareness, which this challenge would also do. You can't stop re-touching, but you can educate young women about how altered fashion photographs really are. So, in my head, I see this as having nothing to do with detracting or going against Dove's campaign.

The more girls see reality vs. photoshopped, the more it will help.

Dude this was his point. And you missed it!

Message edited by author 2007-01-29 17:12:27.

01/29/2007 05:12:24 PM · #49

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

When PETA goes to a Mink farm to show how the animals are treated, they're not producing a training video. It would be a bad to name a "PETA Challenge" in which the goal was to mistreat an animal. It's the same thing.

Considering what PETA members are in trouble for now, your argument might have been counter-productive ;-)