Photoshopped models

[johnbuzzed]

I think we all realize that publications have routinely "edited" their illustrations for years. While that's part of the business, it, too, is walking a line between reality and fantasy. On one hand, there is realism- this is what the world looks like. On the other... fantasim? This is how we really want the world to look. So nice and pretty and perfect. Even food in ads usually isn't real food- real food doesn't look good enough for the masses. And while I realize that real food won't last too long under hot lighting, why misrepresent a product?

[Harry P.]

Misrepresenting the product and altering reality have been part of advertising since... forever. Long before Photoshop existed...

[sjordan2]

I once worked with an art director who had been a designer on Mercedes product brochures in the early 70s. At the time, Mercedes had a policy of NO retouching of photos. He recalled the challenges of one particular photo shoot in the desert. First of all, you have to capture the lighting of the "golden hour" when the sun is starting to go down (work fast); secondly, they had to have a huge crew of production assistants to wipe off dust or other glitches between every shot -- sort of like a Formula 1 pit stop. And people had to clear the area quickly to avoid having their reflections in the shot.

I have no idea how they pulled it off, since such set-ups usually require an array of reflectors, scrims and strobe lights on C-stands, not to mention the large battery packs and camera gear.

Edited August 4, 2014 by sjordan2

[FordRodnKustom]

Misrepresenting the product and altering reality have been part of advertising since... forever. Long before Photoshop existed...

"Longer, Lower, Wider"

[Tom Geiger]

Here's the 1939 Plymouth brochure... it looks lower, longer, wider.. maybe sectioned and chopped too? This was the brochure that I decided to stop collecting brochures as model building reference material!

[johnbuzzed]

Here's the 1939 Plymouth brochure... it looks lower, longer, wider.. maybe sectioned and chopped too? This was the brochure that I decided to stop collecting brochures as model building reference material!

Wow- I gotta get me one of them '39 Plymouths!!! (say, wait- the real car did look like that, right?) One of those fedoras, too!

[DynoMight]

I'm okay with toning down the background and bringing the focus to the model, but if you have a chip in the paint and "paint" over that, that's not okay.

[Harry P.]

Yeah, who needs Photoshop to misrepresent reality, anyway?

[Russell C]

Fixed it. Those Tempest cars were actually quite short.

[Mike Kucaba]

Well after this I guess "I seen it wit me own eyes " doesn't mean much

[johnbuzzed]

Yeah, who needs Photoshop to misrepresent reality, anyway?

Yeah, that car's not even red!!!

[Ace-Garageguy]

Yeah, who needs Photoshop to misrepresent reality, anyway?

[Lunajammer]

Who can forget when editorial Photoshopping was first thrust into the American public discussion when Time and Newsweek ran the same OJ cover photo. However Time was accused of making OJ appear more sinister (guilty?) by darkening the dark tones. I believe this is when he was charged but had not yet been tried.

I'm all in favor of color balancing and setting levels but we enter a grey area when, say, more grit is added to a rat rod photo to emotionally sway how the model is viewed, regardless of how clear the build quality is.

[RickMartin]

I think misrepresentation of a model by photoshooping the model is totally wrong if you dont put a disclaimer in your post stating its been photoshopped. On the other hand ive seen models that have been incrediblly done and people tell the poster its been photshopped when it hasnt. As with photoshop paint techinicalogy has also changed. There are some really good paints on the market now that will give you a glass finish look, without to much work..I personally dont use model paints to paint my models, i use automotive paint..with a good primer base, automotive paints can be used with plastic models.

Rick

[unclescott58]

Who can forget when editorial Photoshopping was first thrust into the American public discussion when Time and Newsweek ran the same OJ cover photo. However Time was accused of making OJ appear more sinister (guilty?) by darkening the dark tones. I believe this is when he was charged but had not yet been tried.

I'm all in favor of color balancing and setting levels but we enter a grey area when, say, more grit is added to a rat rod photo to emotionally sway how the model is viewed, regardless of how clear the build quality is.

Wow! I've never seen that before. It is amazing that you manipulate the same photo to that degree. I'm not saying I think OJ was guilty or not. But, if Time darken that picture purposly. That is wrong.

Scott

[Modelbuilder Mark]

I can barely find the time I would like to build, let alone learn a trunk load of photoshop tricks. I do want to get better at taking nice pictures with good lighting in my little portable photo booth, but only when time permits. I would like to have some of the pictures I take LOOK more like the color really is, right there in the room as I view it, but again, I do not have the great editing skills etc that it takes.

I do not know why someone would intentionally try to make you think the mode they are posting is anything other than it is. Light/dark. intensity etc, do not care, I do not want you to see the model the way I wish it were, I want you to see it the way I see it. That is my goal. But again, most of the time you just a quick shot from the bench, because my time building is too precious.

[southpier]

shopped or not ... when you look at someone's picture, first cover the eyes and study the lower half, then the mouth and study the eyes.

than tell me he didn't get away with murder.

[Harry P.]

shopped or not ... when you look at someone's picture, first cover the eyes and study the lower half, then the mouth and study the eyes.

than tell me he didn't get away with murder.

I think we all know he got away with it. Not exactly news...

[Art Anderson]

I once worked with an art director who had been a designer on Mercedes product brochures in the early 70s. At the time, Mercedes had a policy of NO retouching of photos. He recalled the challenges of one particular photo shoot in the desert. First of all, you have to capture the lighting of the "golden hour" when the sun is starting to go down (work fast); secondly, they had to have a huge crew of production assistants to wipe off dust or other glitches between every shot -- sort of like a Formula 1 pit stop. And people had to clear the area quickly to avoid having their reflections in the shot.

I have no idea how they pulled it off, since such set-ups usually require an array of reflectors, scrims and strobe lights on C-stands, not to mention the large battery packs and camera gear.

I remember reading a book about an advertizing photography studio, named I believe, Boulevard Photographic, who did, among other things, photography for the Detroit Big Three automakers back in the 50's through at least the 70's. One trick they came up with was a special type of lens that would elongate the image of a car! Their trick was to elongate the image just to the point that the wheels and tires barely began to show a noticeable oval shape--it apparently worked, as hundreds of thousands of new car brochures were produced back then, with their "elongated" photography!

Art

[Russell C]

......One trick they came up with was a special type of lens that would elongate the image of a car! ......

Being somewhat demented, I prefer the latest funny opposite exercise trend: http://thethrottle.thechive.com/2010/12/08/photoshop-subject-mini-cars-and-one-guy-in-a-real-small-car-20-photos/