Magazine takes heat for doctoring Obama pic
Washingtonian magazine changed the color of Obama's swim trunks and the background in a photo used on their cover. http://bit.ly/bZYiP The video said it was a photo taken by a paparazzi, but they don't mention whether or not the photographer minded the alteration of his photo. I'm not sure why they changed the color of the shorts (other than to make them stand out from the dark background on the cover.) Seems easier to just change the background on the cover. Aside from that, how do you feel about what they did? I think this instance hardly compares to the darkened Time Magazine cover of OJ Simpson years ago. But that's just my opinion.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cassie Marshall on -
I'm not sure what I really think about that. I guess overall the main subject hasn't changed, but it definitely is different from the original shot. I guess ultimately it boils down to if the photographer is okay with it or not. It seems like each photographer will have his/her own opinion about whether they want their shot altered or not. *shrug*
It kind of reminds me of the people who use Photoshop to "fix up" celebrity photos. It amazes me that the smallest freckle, wrinkle, or fold of fat gets wiped away. Check out this guys work: iWANEX. Not that he isn't good, but no wonder we have such horrible self-esteem - even the celebs don't look like this until they've been doctored!
-
Permalink Reply by Alice Thompson on -
Thanks for the link, Cassie. I've not seen that site before. Fascinating to see the before and after. Good to know even the celebrities aren't perfect either. ;-) The one I found most interesting is Halle Berry - really all that appears to have been done on her photo is a little brightening and removing the armband, but otherwise, not much else.
Cassie Marshall said:I'm not sure what I really think about that. I guess overall the main subject hasn't changed, but it definitely is different from the original shot. I guess ultimately it boils down to if the photographer is okay with it or not. It seems like each photographer will have his/her own opinion about whether they want their shot altered or not. *shrug*
It kind of reminds me of the people who use Photoshop to "fix up" celebrity photos. It amazes me that the smallest freckle, wrinkle, or fold of fat gets wiped away. Check out this guys work: iWANEX. Not that he isn't good, but no wonder we have such horrible self-esteem - even the celebs don't look like this until they've been doctored!
-
Permalink Reply by Shane E. on -
No one rolls a pic off the camera and puts it on the cover of a national publication, unless they want someone to look bad. Photos can make your skin, eyes, and teeth look far worse than they appear in person.
-
Permalink Reply by Cassie Marshall on
-
That's very true. If nothing else, I just think its a very interesting and enlightening site to look at. My biggest complaint though would be how even the smallest fold of skin is tweaked to look smaller. These women who are already tiny are being doctored so that even their jaw bones are more defined or their thighs appear slightly larger. Check out the photo of Katherine Heigl (top row, fifth over). Her jaw bone has been been slimmed down. Its really subtle, but why the need? I guess that is just what our culture is demanding...
Shane E. said:No one rolls a pic off the camera and puts it on the cover of a national publication, unless they want someone to look bad. Photos can make your skin, eyes, and teeth look far worse than they appear in person.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob Zimmer on -
Art can be digitally edited, news gathering should not be. Editorial and advertising content can be edited, but journalism should not be. Opinion pieces can use art to make a point, but news should represent the facts. A magazine cover can be any of those things.
I remember reading about a Time or Newsweek cover of the Sept-a-mom and she was heavily retouched for the cover. Tyra Banks once told a story about over hearing some women say: "She looks like Tyra Banks, but not as pretty." I've shot a bunch of Playboy Playmates lately and everyone else who say them says they are not as pretty in person as they are in their photos.
The first link took to a CNN ticker which means that story you are talking about is no longer at the top and I don't feel like searching for it.
The other link with the retouching: the text is too damn small and I can't read it. The retouching is a little over done in my opinion. Still, I'd be happy to outsource editing.
-
Permalink Reply by Shane E. on
-
That IWANEX guy overdoes the skin retouch. He destroys texture a lot and seems like he messes up the eyes a lot (that bland too-white in the eyes). The people on RetouchPro would find him and beat him with a Wacom pen shaped club. Also, knowing how to do something is great, but knowing when to do it is better. This guy turns people into someone else. An anonymous model is okay for changing the bone structure, but I can't see doing it to a celebrity because people are supposed to recognize them. I love me some liquify, but damn. Thinning some arms and maybe a little shift around the hips is cool, but totally filling any wrinkles in the face and mashing out the texture is very poor technique.
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob Zimmer on
-
Yeah, if I weren't rushing through my last post, that's what I would have said too. :-)
Shane E. said:That IWANEX guy overdoes the skin retouch. He destroys texture a lot and seems like he messes up the eyes a lot (that bland too-white in the eyes). The people on RetouchPro would find him and beat him with a Wacom pen shaped club. Also, knowing how to do something is great, but knowing when to do it is better. This guy turns people into someone else. An anonymous model is okay for changing the bone structure, but I can't see doing it to a celebrity because people are supposed to recognize them. I love me some liquify, but damn. Thinning some arms and maybe a little shift around the hips is cool, but totally filling any wrinkles in the face and mashing out the texture is very poor technique.
-
Permalink Reply by Jackie Yenowine on -
i think it just depends. who cares if they altered his shorts. That one cover (Time I think?) where they altered OJ's picture to seem more dark and demented, that was wrong. This.. not so much...
-
Permalink Reply by Jackie Yenowine on
-
dagbernit. if i only read the whole article. sorry about that. Time magazine it is. In college I had a whole ethics in journalism class and we had a huge list of slides we went through with altered photos. I wish I could get a hold of that list.
© 2012 Created by Ryan Armbrust.
