Perpetuating the Beauty Myth?
indiegirl
Registered Users Posts: 930 Major grins
A friend of mine shared this video link with me today. I'm a mom to girls (three of them) and she's a mom to boys and a girl. I know her intention was to further the discussion surrounding media, cultural influence and positive female body type. The thing is, both of us are also photographers and both of us serve "everyday people."
In my workflow, I routinely take away blemishes and soften lines as well as smooth skin. My post is not extensive and it does not even come close to creating a perfect complexion - especially in comparison with what I see as popular for some photogs right now. My style is all about capturing real life (my tagline is "Life. Photographed") but I do, at a basic level, modify real life toward something more attractive.
My friend's work is very stylistic and very beautiful. Her work captures a certain perfection and carries a certain "theme" in how she processes. Her work relies heavily on PS. Although she's not making anyone more skinny than they are, the enhancements to skin and eyes is obvious (to me).
I wonder how we, as photogs to the general population, contribute to the expectation of perfection discussed in the linked video. Do we perpetuate the beauty myth by giving our clients something unreal, even if it's only unreal a little bit? Is that a bad thing?
In my workflow, I routinely take away blemishes and soften lines as well as smooth skin. My post is not extensive and it does not even come close to creating a perfect complexion - especially in comparison with what I see as popular for some photogs right now. My style is all about capturing real life (my tagline is "Life. Photographed") but I do, at a basic level, modify real life toward something more attractive.
My friend's work is very stylistic and very beautiful. Her work captures a certain perfection and carries a certain "theme" in how she processes. Her work relies heavily on PS. Although she's not making anyone more skinny than they are, the enhancements to skin and eyes is obvious (to me).
I wonder how we, as photogs to the general population, contribute to the expectation of perfection discussed in the linked video. Do we perpetuate the beauty myth by giving our clients something unreal, even if it's only unreal a little bit? Is that a bad thing?
main | recent work |
0
Comments
But on a basic level - what's the difference between covering up a zit with makeup before the picture is taken and covering up a zit in post after the fact? There's no difference at all. What about removing some grey streaks from a woman's hair? Any different than coloring it? Now of course, removing birthmarks, wrinkles, and other "imperfections" is a next step. Where do we draw the line?
I dunno. I do know there are a lot of teenage (and younger) girls out there with completely unrealistic expectations about how they should look. Is it the fault of the touch-up jobs on the popular magazines? Maybe.
Like your tag line, I think photography should be about capturing life. In my mind, this means "life as it is." I don't know why people would want a picture of something that doesn't accurately reflect what the camera saw - especially when dealing with people. Is someone supposed to look at a totally unrealistic picture of me and be fooled as to how I look, even though the real version is sitting in front of them? Who are we trying to fool? Oftentimes, I think it's ourselves.
How's that for a stream-of-consciousness rant with no clear answer to your question?
If you providing a service for a fee, you give the customer what they want, what there vision of a great image is. Its best not to insult them by leaving that big old pimple on there forehead
If your doing it as a hobby, art, pj, etc, your free to do whatever you want, no matter what others think. It would be your interpretation of your vision, not other peoples.
I guess it all comes down to if your interpreting for others, or interpreting for your own visions. Many artists thrive on capturing real life, full of reality, not masking anything, and are legendary for it. That is great, as long as there customers arnt expecting something else.
I find the video/discussion null and void and old-hat. Beauty is not a myth. Beauty can be found in nature and people. Sometimes beauty is what we feel or smell or sense, rather than what we see. Beholding beauty is as has been said, in the eye of the beholder. So therefore sometimes one might see beauty, and then one might hear what the beautiful-one has to say and change their mind.
I pride myself on always giving the client something of beauty they didn't expect. That as far as I can tell is my job. And more than just that, it is my pleasure to do so.
My experiences so far say No. It is not a bad thing to please your client. Not bad at all to make them feel good, or beautiful or special, or even courageous. Have a look at a blog post of mine from last year: here
The first version is SOOC. The second version was run through Portrait Professional (for the purposes of this discussion - and maybe Facebook). I just left their standard settings - no other fiddling about.
Personally, I'd prefer to show the world the second version so that my "imperfections" are minimized and softened. My hair is still gray. I still have wrinkles - they're just not so prominent. If I were to pile on the make-up I could probably duplicate the look.
Is it wrong to touch-up a photo? I don't think so - unless one goes nuts and totally plasticizes the subject.
Just my two-cents worth.
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
Ran through a blue filter to accentuate the freckles.
again, made the wrinkles and lines stronger
It's all opinion anyway.
Smugger for life!
Most Popular Photos
While smoothing the blemishes off of skin is one thing, turning people away because of there looks, I believe that is a whole new level of being unreal. Would you photograph a bride who was obese, or a child with a cleft lip....... I have never seen a photo like this shown on a persons website promoting there wedding and portrait photography
Yup. Exactly.
I don't see a lot of harm in making someone look as if they would had a makeup artist been present. Removal of acne, softening of lines, getting rid of shine, etc... But when I see a baby with no skin texture and eyes that make them look alien, I begin to wonder if the industry is feeding some weird eugenics fantasy.
Yes, I am on this end of the spectrum as well. And I love this image.
Quick note: I just photographed a wedding and the bride is obese. She was also a sweetheart, and a wonderful person. In a week or two I will have some images of her on my website. I have posted a few images in the wedding section of Dgrin.
Sam
Both images are fine. The small amount of processing in the second is, in my opinion, very acceptable. It's simply presenting a photo that is while absolutely accurate, is also flattering.
No one viewing the second image would have any trouble identifying you in real life.
Sam
While standing in a check out line at the grocery store take a look at the magazine covers. While I make absolutely no claim to be the best portrait photographer out there, I would love to be able to challenge the magazines to a cover shoot off. I have seen way too many of what I consider horrible images of celebrates.
Sam
What you shoot and what you show are often two different things. As a portrait or wedding photographer you want to put your best foot forward. If you want to see "real" people, look at the photo journalists. Quite a few of them will show the worst of people.
Photography isn't real, it is the perception that we choose to show.
I am not going to claim that it is right, it is what it is. If you want to be busy shooting portraits and weddings, you show the prettiest people.
In my world (commercial photography) the best working models have stipulations in their contracts about how they appear. Certain things are removed or softened or shrunk.
Clothes are made to fit that model, not the people who may buy it.
It is all a part of the game that we play. It is up to you whether or not you wish to play the game.
Website
Maybe, too, it's about being mindful about it.
Absolutely accurate?
I don't have a problem with the second image if that's the one the client prefers, but let's not kid ourselves and call it accurate. We don't like aging in this country. We buy expensive lotions, have surgeries, and (if all else fails) manipulate the picture. I think she's clearly a woman who has aged well - but I do think we are perpetuating the "signs of age are bad" problem if we think that the second picture is somehow accurate.
I'm enjoying reading the discussion, by the way, and appreciate the diversity of perspectives. I'm not trying to pick a fight but figured we're all grown-up enough to have some civil disagreement.
Wouldn't that be nice.
I am often amazed (and appreciate) the diversity of thoughts here on this forum. As I live my life on the business side of photography, I sometimes forget that there is a personal side.
Website
I understand your point. Hopefully you understand the damage this (NOT YOU) type of photography can do bombarding young girls.
I have and will continue to process some images into a more glamor fantasy look. I don't have an issue with this in general, I am just trying to say when EVERY IMAGE seen is like this it can have a compounding negative effect.
If you choose to do high end glamor fashion photography you will be forced / required to present images that meet the current style or loose work.
It's really hard to articulate my thoughts on this via the written word.
While I am not against glamor processing I am not too keen on total manipulation. Why have a high paid model? Just create what you want from scratch.
I didn't know some models have contract stipulations with removing and shrinking parts. I can't image agreeing to pay say $1000.00 an hour for a high end model only to have her show up and say " Gee wizz I have been so busy I haven't had time to exercise, eat right or take care of my shin so you need to shrink the fat off my arms, legs and remove my pot belly."
I know it's what it is but I don't have agree with it.
OH and for the record I don't need no stinking games.
Sam
No problem with disagreement. Again it's very difficult to express ones thoughts via writing.
As an attempt to define what I meant by my statement. I certainly see a reduction of lines, but I don't see anything else. I don't see a 19 year old. You and I would be able to recognize her immediately. If we say changed her hair style color and continued on with the processing I could create a portrait that was so different then the real person you and I would not be able to pick her out of a line up.
Sam
Seriously, what makes you think the first image is anymore accurate then the second image?
Your making a assumption of her age, and assuming the first one must be correct simply because the skin wasn't smoothed
Cameras dont fully tell the truth of what they capture, so only people looking at Snowgirl in person knows what she really looks like! (according to there own vision)
The first image, the camera could have very well accentuated any lines, skin texture, and blemishes. We know that a portrait right out of the camera tends to saturate reds on skin. It is totally believable that the first image is the incorrect one, and the second is the one that shows a more accurate representation of her.
Its not about me or what I think, its about the fact that it is common for photographers to portray a false sense of reality. Regardless of what I think or what you think, it is up to societies values. Not only are photographers promoting it directly or indirectly, but society is expecting it.
We all learn from a very young age what to value, what to like and dislike from the influences in our life. What we consider to be "beauty", is learned from the people who influence our development. While we cant change our genetics, we sure can change the way we respond to things. What we do individually, affects everyone in our society, its not a matter of choosing to "play the game" or not. It affects everyone no matter if they choose to avoid it or not.
People cant change there genetics, how they were born, or how we look, but society sure can change what we consider to be "beauty"
Seriously? Because the first one looks like real skin and the second one looks like no skin that has ever existed. As I said before, showgirl has aged well. It's not as if the first picture makes her look bad. It may be that, this instance, there is something in-between that more closely represents reality but I stand by my assertion that no person has ever possessed the skin represented in the second picture.
The myth thing first mentioned with the link to the video, went right by me, only because I despise folks so fixated on external focuses. Especially parents. Why? Because in my belief system and our collective mythology, "it" all starts at home. You want a teen to like/love herself, you have to begin teaching them early. The body doesn't become a temple, it is a temple.
I for one, do not like the aging thing! I haven't found anything I truly like about it.....aging itself is much worse than the signs.
Snowgirl & SimpsonBrothers photos are both nice representations I think. How many times have we processed an image only to come back to it later and ask: "what was I thinking?" I know I have! Technique plays a role as well as far as the processing goes.