Is portrait/model photography still honest?

[damibru]

In times of Photoshop and various other post processing software it seems like any and every model looks picture perfect. Skin looks as smooth as silk and lighting always seems to illuminate those special areas which makes the model unique; eyes as bright as the stars, hair as shiny as the sun. But is this really photography? I've seen whole websites dedicated to making a mediocre photo look great. I personally can stand some post processing but some of the "photography" out there, in my humble opinion, looks just way too overdone, which unfortunately seems to have become the standard. I know photography is a subjective medium within an even more subjective spectrum and certainly photography in and of itself should be celebrated, but is portrait/model photography still honest? I'd love to hear your opinions.

[hue-e]

like it or not, it's what photography is today... at least for some. I'm on the fence about "overdoing" anything. but photoshop, or any other technology, isn't going anywhere. it's only going to get more advanced and eventually devour the old school.

as for honesty... the commercial art world is based on stretched truth to convince you to buy sh*t you don't need.

[David Whatley]

Dave, I agree with you and personally dont do all that much post work to images. If I wanted to go that route, why get a model. I would just go to the store and buy a Ken and Barbie doll.

[sldi]

When its a headshot for an agency then I do very little except take a way a few bruises or bug bites. The picture and the person that shows up for the audition have to be the same.

[brewercm]

Yep, I remember seeing these people coming out of Glamour Shots type studios and they'd have makeup so thick on you wouldn't recognize them if you knew them. Now rather than taking the time for "as much" makeup they just handle it in post processing.

I'm actually kind of undecided on HDR also. To me they don't look anything like what the human eye sees, more like a print taken from a painting. Nothing wrong with it, just not my cup of tea I suppose.

[janikphoto]

Even in the 1930's the glamour and celebrity portraits weren't very "real". They did a lot of post-production, just not with photoshop.

[brad]

Originally Posted by janikphoto

Even in the 1930's the glamour and celebrity portraits weren't very "real". They did a lot of post-production, just not with photoshop.

Yea.. I was gonna say... "Still?"

Manipulation of photographs has been around as long as photographs have... remember, it was originally thought to be a supplement to painters.

There's a reason why a print made by Ansel Adams is worth more than a print made by someone from an Ansel Adams negative... he did some darkroom tricks to his prints that sent them over the top.

[Howard Barlow]

Have you never heard of burn/dodge, retouching pencils/oils/colors, airbrushes, etc? Why do you think this is something new?

[ndsimm]

I think part of it has to do with what the client "expects". I had a photo session with twin ladies, both plus sized and while one loved the shots, the other thought she was too fat and assumed that I was going to "fix" them
BTW, the one that loved them was a lot more comfortable with her body and posing for the camera than the one that complained....

[damibru]

Originally Posted by Howard Barlow

Have you never heard of burn/dodge, retouching pencils/oils/colors, airbrushes, etc? Why do you think this is something new?

I've never stated I think this is something new. What I've said is that it's way overdone nowadays! Hence my question, is it honest? I saw a guy on the net take a shot with a PS camera and then doctor it up so much in PS it looked like something completely different (i.e. perfect skin, perfect hair, etc). To me personally, it's not photography! A little bit of PP is okay as far as I'm concerned, but I thoroughly enjoy the process of getting my light, poses, composition and such right before I press the shutter.

[Angelo]

Dave, you are absolutely correct, for you and those who believe as you.

Those that believe in using PP skills to beautify (you call it change) a subject/scene are also absolutely correct.

What I'm trying to say is there's no right or wrong - it's in the eye of the beholder.
Or, as I was told a long time ago, "whatever floats your boat".

[brewercm]

I just think a lot more is done now in PP rather than as part of the actual image that was taken.

[sbug_adam]

thats just the way it is.. times change, people change, tastes change.

Look at Leave it to Beaver, that show today would be watched by about 27 65 year olds.. but back then it was watched by hundreds of thousands. Its just the way things are.

[ka5txl]

Originally Posted by Angelo

Or, as I was told a long time ago, "whatever floats your boat".

+1 It's sort of like hairstyles, used too be there was such a thing as a bad haircut, now it's a "Fashion Statement!"

[srwatters]

I believe you can make great portraits without materially changing the subject to look like someone they aren't or were 10+ years ago. But having said that, I also think it's art and you can make it what you want. What I don't like is someone in the business of selling a product (their face and/or body image) by misrepresenting themselves using such photographs. I still believe in meeting face to face before booking someone for a paid photoshoot. But that's an extremely small percentage of my photography work.

I truly enjoy making portraits in my own way...



BTW, I ran into Alyson at Twin Peaks the other day. She still looks just like this