" Dove Commercial" Challenge, Expert Editing.

01/29/2007 05:17:27 PM · #51

Originally posted by Siggav:

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 :)

Before photos good point.

Anybody want to photo shop hair on me? I will post a before shot later and let you make me the next brad pitt.

wavelength

Nikon D300

01/29/2007 05:18:41 PM · #52

Originally posted by chimericvisions:

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.

This challenge IS THE MINK FARM!.

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

01/29/2007 05:22:50 PM · #53

Originally posted by wavelength:

We could argue that what Dove is doing is not right too. What if a girl wants to see herself without the blemishes? I know there is a fine line there, but I think sometimes it can work in reverse.

By the way I teach 6th graders computers and I show this to them to make the point that they are beautiful the way they are, and they should not try to look like the girls in magazines because it is impossible without photoshop and makeup artists. It does a lot of good.

fotomann_forever

01/29/2007 05:23:51 PM · #54

Originally posted by boomtap:

Anybody want to photo shop hair on me? I will post a before shot later and let you make me the next brad pitt.

Not asking for much are ya? ;-P

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/29/2007 05:26:39 PM · #55

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by chimericvisions:
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.

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!

and the 400 or so 'ordinary' people who are publicly improved and made 'extraordinary' in this challenge, how does this improve their self-esteem ? (which is the actual purpose of the campaign)

I got his point, I just happen to disagree with it based on the experience of talking to people who've had this done to them.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/29/2007 05:36:23 PM · #56

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by chimericvisions:
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.

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!

and the 400 or so 'ordinary' people who are publicly improved and made 'extraordinary' in this challenge, how does this improve their self-esteem ? (which is the actual purpose of the campaign)

I got his point, I just happen to disagree with it based on the experience of talking to people who've had this done to them.

I was talking to Chimericvisions. And you don't have to agree however it still seems to me that we are saying the same thing. You have to show the extreme alterations made during editing to enlighten woman to the fallacy of living up to an unattainable standard as it is MAKE BELIEVE.

01/29/2007 05:40:33 PM · #57

I will give you an example of this sort of thing in the record business. When an artist records a song it undergoes tremendous editing. Without the editing the song sucks. Everysong, every artist. They correct pitch add vocals electronically and change just about everything from the original recordings. The bands that don't, simply don't get listened to. When bands perform live now, they are run through a midi triggering software that controls lighting and also additional music. Most live artists now have a factory of "other" music that was pre-recorded and plays behind the group as they play live. The reason you never know is because it is so flawlessy triggered behind the scenes by software. It can even correct pitch problems and errors on the fly. When you see a concert now adays you are being decieved big time. I have heard of bands with guitar players that are too drunk to go on that night, so they just have the software play for them, and they pretend to be there for the show. Even bands that are not using the software, use hordes of musicians behind the curtian that you don't know about.

When an album is finished it undergoes "mastering". Technically the record sonically is superior before the mastering process, but people will not buy a non-mastered album because it is quieter. So they crank the volume and compress the mix. It makes the volume loud at the expense of some of the fidelity. A pureset would prefer the non-mastered version however us dorks prefer the louder mastered version and that is what we buy and prefer.

I don't think with the addition of digital into everything we do we will get away from this. People are going to want to look good and sound good. If it takes technology to do this they will embrace it. Look at plastic surgery, that sure isn't going away. I prefer photoshop to plastic surgery for sure.

I think it is the same with models and photoshop.

While I agree with DOVE's message fully, make no mistake that it is an add campaign designed to do one thing. Make money. Corperations can hide behind ideals and doing what is best for people but they would change their stance on this in a minute for a buck. All Corperations are like "Mr. Crabs" from Spongebob. They would sell your soul for the money in the pocket of the guy next to you.

fotomann_forever

01/29/2007 05:49:30 PM · #58

Originally posted by Gordon:

I got his point, I just happen to disagree with it based on the experience of talking to people who've had this done to them.

That's funny. I can't count the numbers of wrinkles, laugh lines, crows feet, stretch marks, blemishes, fat rolls, lazy eyes, butt dimples, and other assorted imperfections I have been asked to fix. I'm no miracle worker, but I do believe if I could make granny look 20, I would be a rich man.

Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II USM (Black)

01/29/2007 06:44:44 PM · #59

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Gordon:

I got his point, I just happen to disagree with it based on the experience of talking to people who've had this done to them.

That's funny. I can't count the numbers of wrinkles, laugh lines, crows feet, stretch marks, blemishes, fat rolls, lazy eyes, butt dimples, and other assorted imperfections I have been asked to fix. I'm no miracle worker, but I do believe if I could make granny look 20, I would be a rich man.

I am going to print that quote and paste it to my screen! lol

fotomann_forever

01/29/2007 06:52:20 PM · #60

Originally posted by boomtap:

I am going to print that quote and paste it to my screen! lol

Consider it my contribution to the public domain ;-)

Gaby_G

Canon EOS-5D

01/29/2007 07:20:32 PM · #61

I have made my own attempt at the subject

for the 30 SP challenge... and yep, this is completely against the campaing, I want to look like in the third picture! jajaja...

Back to the thread, after doing it, actually I think that you can do this with advanced rules, with an extra rule that permited the double picture for the before and after...