Comments on: Photos never lie?

Photos never lie?

Dave Faris — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:01:21 -0800

Movie stars. What have they got that you haven't got? A professional retoucher. (via YesbutNobutYes)

(Click on Portfolio. Flash interface, click on the thumbnail and hover over the pop-up to see the unretouched photo. Clicking on the pop-up will make it go away.)

By: white light

white light — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:06:43 -0800

I think everyone knows this already. Also, the retouched versions won't show up for me at all in Firefox. Kind of interesting anyway... I guess...

By: R. Mutt

R. Mutt — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:08:03 -0800

I know folks that get very well paid to do this to photos of models in clothing catalogs... including one guy whose specialty is high end underwear.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:09:09 -0800

It's pretty sad that some of the starlets had to be retouched to look healthier because they are two skinny. It worked fine for me in Firefox.

By: zeoslap

zeoslap — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:10:05 -0800

I thought the pics of the guys were interesting, usually you only see what they do to the ladies.

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:13:12 -0800

Echoing oddman. Cameron Diaz, for example, had to have her thighs made larger to look good, because apparently in real life she has anorexic chicken legs. Look at the photo. It's damn weird to see the models get smaller rather than being larger in the "before" shot.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:13:16 -0800

Some of the stars actually look better in the unretouched photos (Penelope Cruz, Cate Blanchett) or don't really need retouching at all (Halle Berry). Nicolette Sheridan, on the other hand, would look around 50 without help.

By: Muddler

Muddler — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:14:02 -0800

People may already know this happens, but that really isn't the point. I found the portfolio examples interesting, especially considering I touch up my own photos. There are some examples in there where I thought the retouch was a nice correction for light or even makeup - other corrections seemed to go beyond mere retouching, and into recreation. To me there is an ethical line, and I haven't often seen a website with so many easy to use examples. So, nice link. Oh, and while I appreciate the warnings that a link doesn't work, or doesn't work in a specific browser, as that avoids confusion for other readers, please tell me people on MeFi are over the "it doesn't work in firefox/opera/whatever" complaint about web design.

By: doctor_negative

doctor_negative — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:17:35 -0800

The problem is all the retouched people look fake. Once you know what to look for it's pretty easy to tell. Perfect skin, no wrinkles = fake. I prefer people not to look like wax dumbies, these all look like the RealDoll version themselves.

By: PHINC

PHINC — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:20:25 -0800

So, can you do that stuff in Photoshop?

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:21:02 -0800

When I think about you, I retouch myself.

By: Laotic

Laotic — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:21:27 -0800

brain_drain, just what I wanted to say.

By: wfc123

wfc123 — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:21:57 -0800

Unless you are the hot starlet's personal physician who can make that call, skinny does not equal unhealthy.

By: Terminal Verbosity

Terminal Verbosity — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:24:09 -0800

So many of these are simply making up for poor lighting on the photographer's part. And they do look like RealDolls after retouching. They look like they're carved from butter and would melt if the photographer had any sort of light trained on them.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:29:10 -0800

Previously

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:29:12 -0800

By: callmejay

callmejay — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:29:32 -0800

I hate that they retouch freckles out of existence.

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:30:16 -0800

Terminal Verbosity hits the nail on the head. Most of these people are actually beautiful in real life, but the photographs are miserable. Some even to the extent that makes me think that they have retouched the 'before' photos to make them look worse. Seriously. A-listers don't really get amateur photographers to do their shoots, so there's something fishy going on. Also, I'm quite surprised that they are allowed to show these pictures to sell their product, surely one of the stars being used would have kicked a fuss...

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:34:14 -0800

one guy whose specialty is high end underwear You mean... there really is an Official Panty Inspector?

By: lekvar

lekvar — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:38:38 -0800

I've been a professional retoucher and fixed a few of my own photos. Does that mean I get to be a movie star now?

By: lekvar

lekvar — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:41:52 -0800

And seconding Terminal Verbosity and slimepuppy. A lot of those "before" shots were retouched not because the model especially needed it, but the photographs were really bad. Out of focus, poorly lit, just bad. Is Photoshop giving photographers license to be lazy now?

By: essexjan

essexjan — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:44:07 -0800

MeFites don't need that. We have DaShiv. With DaShiv. Without DaShiv (but with bonus Elvis)

By: quin

quin — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:54:21 -0800

I have a professional retoucher; his name is Jack Daniels and he hangs out with me on the weekends. Generally I trust his skills to make everyone around me look better. You all should thank him.

By: Wood

Wood — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:56:09 -0800

Argh, that's terrible what they did to Julia Stiles, they just flattened her out. They removed the muscles from her arm! Whuffo? And the third girl, whoever she is, they did her no favors by shrinking her legs & ass... they turned sexy jeans into skinny jeans.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:58:13 -0800

Surprise--everyone gets whiter! And how much longer until noses get buffed out of existence, like every other facial feature in these pics. And whoever that guy is in the bottom center of the portfolio page should sue...he's awesome looking in the before and hideous in the after pic. I'm wondering if the next cosmetic fad will be LED-glowing contacts to match the whole 'children of the corn' eye thing going on here...

By: aparrish

aparrish — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:58:43 -0800

Only one question: Why make everyone's irises brighter like that? The retouched photo of Cameron Diaz makes it look as though there's a floodlight inside her skull.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:02:16 -0800

You know what else movie stars have that I haven't got? Personal assistants. I got dry cleaning that needs doing, yo.

By: troybob

troybob — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:04:55 -0800

or 'village of the damned' eye thing, i guess

By: knapah

knapah — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:09:09 -0800

I hate that they retouch freckles out of existence. Agreed! Damn frecklists. Apart from the first one, I have been looking at these by centring my mouse on the pictures as they loaded so I would see the before shots first. It's amazing how bad the After shots look when I did that.

By: rusty

rusty — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:12:20 -0800

I don't know. I do a lot of these things in my own pictures. Color correction (my camera's color balance sucks), sharpening, bringing up highlights in eyes and hair, deemphasizing the background, occasionally removing a distracting feature that I didn't notice in the shot or couldn't do anything about at the time. And smoothing skin tones, especially. Of course, I don't shoot in a studio and rarely use any sort of artificial light at all, so I'm sort of at the mercy of the environment most of the time. I don't really have any problem with any of these. They're techniques to make the subject look better and/or the shot conform better to what the photographer wanted. troybob / aparrish: People look at the eyes in pictures first, last, and most of the time in between. Bright eyes make a picture seem more lively and the subject more engaged. Dark or unaccented eyes tend to be off-putting. Take a look at pictures of people, wherever you might find them. Virtually all of them will show a bright reflection in the eyes (called a "catchlight"), usually shone there on purpose by the photographer for reflection purposes.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:14:30 -0800

I like how they retouched the wall behind Justin Timberlake.

By: thanotopsis

thanotopsis — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:20:06 -0800

I have a professional retoucher; his name is Jack Daniels and he hangs out with me on the weekends. Generally I trust his skills to make everyone around me look better. Thanks, now I've got a George Thoroughgood song running through my head... Do you and your retoucher drink alone?

By: backseatpilot

backseatpilot — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:25:02 -0800

I really loathe the heavy amounts of retouching, partly because it creates an unnatural standard of beauty, but mostly because it creates lazy photographers. I mean, why think about such menial things as lighting or composition when you can simply fix it in Photoshop?

By: heeeraldo

heeeraldo — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:25:25 -0800

odiv: I thought it looked like a simple contrast adjustment on the wall; not a full-blown retouch.

By: heeeraldo

heeeraldo — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:26:23 -0800

of course that raises the question of whether walls can beretouched too much, and if they start looking like RealWalls after a point.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:26:51 -0800

why think about such menial things as lighting or composition when you can simply fix it in Photoshop? I used to groan every time the director on a film or commercial I was going to edit would say, "We'll fix it in post!" Laziness personified.

By: zarah

zarah — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:27:43 -0800

None of them are in the least bit improved by the retouching, just made to look waxen, save for the wee girl from desperate housewives (5th from the left 2nd row). She's very blah for someone who continually brags about having superior genes compared to the rest of us :p

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:32:32 -0800

Movie stars. What have they got that you haven't got? A professional retoucher. You obviously don't know me very well.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:34:39 -0800

heeraldo: Nah, there were definitely blemishes on that wall that were removed.

By: suckerpunch

suckerpunch — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:41:38 -0800

I really loathe the heavy amounts of retouching, partly because it creates an unnatural standard of beauty One thing I've wondered : since retouched photos have pretty much taken over all media, how many people think that wrinkles or signs of age are relatively rare, and thus valuable? Besides, what is a 'natural' standard of beauty? Personally, I tend to love crows' feet or other such things, but I can't seperate my love for them from the feeling that they indicate someone who's representing herself fairly - no makeup, nothing hidden.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:43:46 -0800

Well, I feel better.

By: papercake

papercake — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:47:48 -0800

Wow. They felt the need to make Eva Longoria THINNER?

By: Terminal Verbosity

Terminal Verbosity — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:51:23 -0800

I hate that they retouch freckles out of existence. No shit! I don't know who the last girl is, but she is smoking hot in her untouched photo. The retouch looks like some sort of anime. And poor Brittany Murphy. I didn't even recognize her without the bags under her eyes that separate her from every other blonde starlet.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:53:36 -0800

papercake writes "Wow. They felt the need to make Eva Longoria THINNER?" In parts, but they also felt the need to make her fatter in others. They reduced her waist, increased her legs, and increased her arms. Overall, weight probably didn't change.

By: quin

quin — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:57:52 -0800

thanotopsis : Do you and your retoucher drink alone? Well, other than his cobra snake necktie, yeah.

By: Weebot

Weebot — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:20:36 -0800

@slimepuppy: Well, this is the retoucher's portfolio, so he is going to put in the pictures with the most noticeable amount of retouching. I can't imagine him wanting to post the photos where all he needed to do was run the photo through Photoshop's auto-color correction. I wouldn't be surprised if he retouched the before pictures to look worse, though.

By: Weebot

Weebot — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:23:06 -0800

Also, I'm pretty sure that the stars are contractually obligated to allow the retoucher to use their photos in his portfolio. Probably standard business practice.

By: ODiV

ODiV — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:28:19 -0800

They should negotiate better contract. You'd think that there would be a good ratio of retouchers to celebrities. Maybe that's not true.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:30:46 -0800

Photography has never been solely about what comes out of the camera in the modern era. Darkroom manipulation is as old as chemically developed photographs themselves. The only difference now is that the darkroom is a computer running Photoshop. Not having to worry quite so much about lighting and composition is what frees photographers to try to capture the subject, and then tweak some of the technical stuff later. Composition is, without question, THE most important component of good photography, but few people think of cropping being any sort of transgression. They used to use an actual airbrush to remove Farrrah Fawcett's wrinkles and bags, not just an icon labeled "airbrush".

By: chrominance

chrominance — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:31:16 -0800

Now I know who to blame for the blown-out highlights look. Easy with the levels, kid!

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:31:52 -0800

Now I can call Eva Longoria a 'no ass talent clown,' instead of the other way around.

By: Aversion Therapy

Aversion Therapy — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:46:59 -0800

I'm sorry, but really this is not all that difficult. Half of these pics are just an over-indulgent use of the Smudge tool in Photoshop, maybe with a Stamp thrown in for good measure. I'd be much more impressed if they coudl do it the other way, take smooth plastic-skinned Hollywood types and make them look like human beings.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:54:11 -0800

I think it was the wall's bad side. The third one in the bottom row is especially bad. The before's a little dark, but there is nuance and character in the photo that are completely missing in the retouch. Some of the stars actually look better in the unretouched photos (Penelope Cruz, Cate Blanchett) or don't really need retouching at all (Halle Berry) The Penelope Cruz one is strange. Let's make your hair wild and fun--but not too wild and fun! The loose curl on her forehead in the before picture is really cute, and the retouch is boring. If you switch back and forth between the two you can watch her right collerbone move about three inches back and forth. On the plus side, they did make Halle Berry naked. On this minus side, this could mean that any naked pictures of Halle Berry might actually not be of the actual Halle Berry actually naked. I still believe, though. Virtually all of them will show a bright reflection in the eyes (called a 'catchlight'), usually shone there on purpose by the photographer for reflection purposes. Yeah, you can already see them in some of the before pictures (at least the first two in the top row). Well, other than his cobra snake necktie, yeah. What about one scotch and one beer?

By: rusty

rusty — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:10:06 -0800

Ynoxas: I agree with you. None of these retouches changed the composition, and fixing bad composition (unless it's very minor and you can get it with a small crop or a slight rotation) has always been pretty much impossible. Griping about photographic manipulation always felt just like people griping about non-representational painting to me. Like the result of an essential misunderstanding of the medium.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:14:27 -0800

Their name sounds like "I WANX STUDIO"

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:21:29 -0800

Heh, they erased LeLo's trademark freckles. I didn't even recognize her after picture. And actually I'm not even sure if the it's Lindsay Lohan at all, now that I think about it. Anyway, I actually think this is just some random website that downloaded 'before' pictures of celebrities (one was clearly cut out of a newspaper) as an example. I don't think these guys were hired by the actual celebs.

By: misha

misha — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:10:35 -0800

Actually, though I knew this rationally, this site was an eye-opener for me. Funny how we don't like pictures of ourselves and know we could use some retouching, but don't (or at least I don't) automatically assume that the pictures we see of celebs are retouched to that extent. I know there's a lot of airbrushing of skin, etc., but I had no idea they fooled around with the star's measurements that much.

By: Maias

Maias — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:22 -0800

Yeah, I agree this stuff does give an unnatural standard of beauty. The abs particularly-- it is almost impossible to get the small, toned waists that they create, perhaps actually impossible. Never mind the lack of wrinkles, frizz, cellulite and freckles. I think it affects everyone unconsciously, leading to a sense of dissatisfaction that is insatiable in real life. Of course, we real life itself creates insatiable dissatisfaction, but I think this makes it worse.

By: Lord Kinbote

Lord Kinbote — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:36:57 -0800

works fine in Firefox 2.0.0.6

By: bink

bink — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:42:06 -0800

By: LooseFilter

LooseFilter — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:49:33 -0800

I have to agree with the prevailing sentiment: I like nearly all of the unretouched versions better. Most of the final versions look animated to me.

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:52:11 -0800

I think Howard Stern summed up my feelings on this sort of thing when he said "Man, I'd really like to sleep with whoever that girl is on the cover of the Kelly Clarkson album."

By: squalor

squalor — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:47:42 -0800

I end up doing this sort of thing a lot for people who consider themselves to be celebrities but are really not celebrities (corporate types). Tightening chins, smoothing skin, straightening & whitening teeth, etc. - it's kind of like being a virtual mortician. Weirdest thing is when I get a chance to finally meet someone whose face I've retouched- it feels like we should know each other already.

By: [insert clever name here]

[insert clever name here] — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:47:46 -0800

It's more than airbrushing. For the second one from the right in the top row, I think they used Bondo. Just kind of spackled her whole undereye area in, smoothed it out, and added that weird babylike internal glow. I think that's Brittney Murphy, but damn near impossible to tell in the retouched photos. The girl's got goggly eyes, you can't tell it's her without them.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:23 -0800

Maias writes "The abs particularly-- it is almost impossible to get the small, toned waists that they create, perhaps actually impossible." No, I've seen some music videos (which are far less susceptible to retouching, what with the "24 pictures every second") featuring singers with lousy voices and amazing abs.

By: quin

quin — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:24:51 -0800

Holy hell, that is Brittney Murphy. A quick narration of the last five minutes: quin stands up and addresses his co-workers, "Anyone here know who Brittney Murphy is?" Several hands go up, I wave them over and point to the screen. "Is that her?" Several seconds pass, there is some hesitation, "It kinda looks like her..." I move the mouse so that can see the un-retouched photo, a general chorus of "whoa" is heard. If you have modified the picture to the point where the very famous person is unidentifiable, you have failed.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:36:40 -0800

> why think about such menial things as lighting or composition when you can simply fix it in Photoshop? Well musicians always go "You can fix that in ProTools, right?"

By: zardoz

zardoz — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:56:39 -0800

I'll nth the sentiment that Halle, Cate, and Penelope--hell, fully half of those folks--look perfectly hot in "reality". It seems to me that there's a direct correlation with ubiquitous retouching and photographers simply being lazy. I'm far from a pro photgrapher and even I can notice the crap lighting in a lot of those shots.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:03:59 -0800

No, I've seen some music videos (which are far less susceptible to retouching, what with the "24 pictures every second") featuring singers with lousy voices and amazing abs. In one scene in the film "300", I'm sure I saw abs painted on his chest. Ok, ok, extra definition and highlights painted on in makeup. At 24 pictures every second, you do the airbrushing before the pictures are taken :-)

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:09:03 -0800

I'd be much more impressed if they coudl do it the other way, take smooth plastic-skinned Hollywood types and make them look like human beings. I feel a nearly irressistable urge to point out that the site didn't actual label which of the images were the retouched ones, and then pretend I'm shocked and amused that you mistook the plastic-skinned images for the "after" pics. But I shall contain myself :)

By: dgaicun

dgaicun — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:18:50 -0800

I don't know who the last girl is... Step into my office.

By: redteam

redteam — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:01:52 -0800

The real Naomi Watts is so much prettier. Same with the real Cate Blanchett. The worst thing about sites like this is that you can show them to girls you know over and over and they don't get any less insecure.

By: preparat

preparat — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:53:23 -0800

I didn't even immediately recognize that the photos were of famous people - not sure if I should enjoy that fact, or if I should be concerned about my attention to detail. I'll take B for $500. Also, the green/grey on black scheme makes me sad. And finally, google ads? Seriously...

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 05:15:55 -0800

-harlequin- writes "In one scene in the film '300', I'm sure I saw abs painted on his chest. Ok, ok, extra definition and highlights painted on in makeup." Yeah, sorry, shoulda clarified: I'm talking about the "no extra bulges female ab" look, not the "intentional extra bulges male ab" look. Adding abs with makeup is easy. Removing abs or muffin tops or the like is hard if not impossible. I figured since most of the pics were of females, Maias was saying that female abs like those pictured might not be possible, and I just meant that I suspect they are. Actually, no, screw that, come to think of it, in my clubbing days I saw abs like that, on folks who were obviously not into applying ab makeup. So I know abs like that are possible.

By: bigskyguy

bigskyguy — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:22:25 -0800

I'm NOT such an ugly duckling. And I vote "yea" on freckles. They bestow a certain Celtic charm.

By: jfwlucy

jfwlucy — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:03:25 -0800

Who is the guy in the middle of the bottom row whose face bulges in and out? Tee hee.

By: Maias

Maias — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:22:49 -0800

Bug, I know the musculature is possible, but the waist/hip ratio is nearly unattainable or certainly only rarely attainable (and clearly, those celebs train compulsively and they *still* need retouching so it must be truly rare indeed). My "body sculpt" teacher has been in some of those videos and she has amazing abs-- but those pictures give adult women the shape of idealized teenage girls.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:44:57 -0800

Yeah, sorry, more clarification time: I wasn't referring to the waist/hip ratio, just the "absolutely flat ab" thing. I'm guessing that it's an either-or thing. You can either have absolutely flat abs, but no...(can't remember the right English word for it)...waist-cinch, or you can have an hourglass figure, but with some bumpiness to your abs.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:24:54 -0800

callmejay writes "I hate that they retouch freckles out of existence." Me too. Wood writes "Argh, that's terrible what they did to Julia Stiles, they just flattened her out. They removed the muscles from her arm! Whuffo?" And flattened her butt, what the heck is the matter with this guy. rusty writes "None of these retouches changed the composition," Well Diaz's photo is changed from a shoulder forward shot to a square shot (equalized her bosom, brought her shoulder forward.) Which makes her arm weirdly disproportionate.