Photoshopping the stars

[alfresco]

. . . And Ron [alfresco......my artistic taleted friend.....] se these boys on all the bs photoshop stuff that goes on and how unrealistic it really is .......they need to know..............I miss the ols black and white shots in the old 70 s muscle builders ......amazing stuff .......the crap today has zero character or talent ...........tell em ronnie......it is sad

Here are my random thoughts on the subject . . .

Let me start by saying that I am really not all the familiar
with the current crop of physique photographers (though
Chris Lund's images seem to stick in my mind) as it has
been ages since I have bought, or even looked at one of
those "build-up" magazines, quit buying and reading them
when Iron Man Magazine was sold to John Balik. Nothing
against John, I have met him and he seems like a stand-up
guy, and is just trying to survive in the publishing business
which must be a Herculean feat in this day and age. So my
photographic frame of reference is from the magazines I
used to collect and what I see occasionally on the www
via the links people here are kind enough to post.

And having spent more than my fair share of time behind a
camera, shooting both digital and film, I think I can honestly
say that there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
But I am a far cry from being an expert in this area, am happy
to give my opinion, say a few things about manipulation in
Photoshop, digital vs.film, and the good 'ol days, touch on
some of the things that Iabadman has said.

I too miss the black and white photos from the 70's, like
the ones Artie Zeller used to shoot with his trusty Nikon.
Jimmy Caruso also comes to mind, as does Russ Warner
and Gene Mozee. I think Artie, best of all, really captured
the spirit, the camaraderie of that special time. His images,
especially of the top guys training at the original Gold's
Gym, with that magical, natural light beaming down through
the skylights, were in a class by themselves. They were
spontaneous, for the most part not "staged" and I can
safely say, were not "manipulated" prior to publication.

Pretty much what you saw was what you got. I spent some
time hanging out, training at that gym at that time, and if
memory serves, it was exactly like I remember seeing it
in the magazines.

Now-a-days, photoshoots, for the most part, and this is
photographer and assignment dependent, are heavily
produced, some might say over produced, not really
accurately capturing the physiques due to all the work that
typically goes into the images in post production, like
removing blemishes, wrinkles, and contouring and shaping
muscles.

Yes, this does occur, how much, to whom and how far
do they go to achieve the idealized image only the photo-
grapher, the art director, and the publisher really know
for sure. But it does occur, and probably more frequently
that you would like to believe. (Dusty could chime in here
as he just did a shoot with Chris Lund, would love to hear
what he has to say.)

As far as the lack of creativity, of talent is concerned, there
certainly are some talented creative photographers out there,
some are just doing things differently, much of which is driven
by the audience and again by the art directors and the photo
editors.

Do I think I like the photographs that are currently being
produced? Technically, they are very strong and I certainly
appreciate what goes into making them and I could not do
what they do. But most so not suit my taste, are not very
creative, and lack a certain amount of style, are over produced
and over manipulated. But as they say, that's what makes
horse racing . . . everybody like something different.

One needs to understand something here, they are selling
a product; a person, a service, or a supplement in a highly
completive field and with all the technology available now,
it only stands to reason that the would use these tools, like
Photoshop, to cast these products in the most favorable
light (pardon the pun), unrealistic or not. It's a slippery slope
I agree.

Between movies, I contribute regularly to the largest photo
agencies in the world (you have probably seen my images
and did not know it). One of my agencies, known throughout
the world for it's editorial and adventure photography, makes
me identify each and every image, whether or not it is
'Journalistic' or 'Manipulated'. Qualifying every images
like this very rare, almost unheard of in this day and age.
But they, the photographers, and their clients have a reputation
at stake, must know if the photo is accurate, not changed.

And at one point in time, a court of law would only accept
a photographic print as evidence only if it was accompanied
by the negative, or if made from a transparency, the positive.

But today, it is possible to make a film "negative" from a
digital file, one that may or may not have been manipulated
by some imaging software like Photoshop. Where that leaves
us now, as far as authenticity, accuracy, and reliability goes,
your guess is a good as mine.

Worth reading if anybody if at all interested in this subject,
an interesting article on digital images, photo manipulation,

Pixel Perfect . . .

The World of Fashion: Pixel Perfect : The New Yorker

 

[PlateStacker45]

k

 

[ssdark1]

there was a youtube vid a few years ago where they showed the transformation of a female model in time lapsed video. she was doing a shoot for a billboard and the finished image looked absolutely nothing like the actual model. they changed the shape of her neck and jawline with editing software...it was amazing and disturbing all at once. these young girls try to emulate a look that isnt even real.

i know ur post was more about BB pics alfresco, but thats all i had to contribute. hope u dont mind.

 

[Iabadman]

Ron great post .......and very enlightening.......I like your respect for both sides of the coin and the respect for the artists work and style......I guess I am just old ,and opinionated.....lol.....I remember buying a whole bunch of the 60s and 70s body building mags and I read the shit out of them ...lol..still do .....they were just awesome....the black and white pics left me in awe....To me that was like art ......beautiful stuff.....then in the 80s the glam stuff I grew up with lost it's apeal to me.......but at least the pics were realistic and gave you something to shoot for................I see a mag cover these days and I just feel for kids......they are looking at images that are so altered it is sickening......I had a friend recently get the cover of one of the top mags ........when I saw it ,I barely recognized it ...it looked nothing like him at all........ever seen a Mucle Tech ad ?And you will see what I am talking about to the extreme ....how can someone know what is real ? The deception in the industry is sad because it doesn't need to be that way .....

Ron thanks for your time and imput here.....I will return your pm over the weekend when I have more time.....much love bro .......fellas this guy is a big timer with lots of cool stuff to share on many subjects .....make sure to ask him lots of questions.....Alfresco is IBA approved.....lol......

 

[thebrick]

Great post Ron

Since I work in publishing and have for the past 30+ years, I feel I am well-qualified to shed some light on what happens when the film leaves Alfresco’s camera on its way to final publication. Or should I more accurately say in 2010, when the memory card leaves Alfresco’s camera?

First, let me say, having worked in this industry over the years that I can tell you that unequivocally, EVERY single photo that you see on the magazine stand in those magazines, EVERY photo on every CD cover, EVERY photo in every ad has been meticulously examined in detail to make those photographs look as as good as they can possibly be. Publishers spend big bucks to put their product out there amid intense competition and it is not done carelessly, believe me. These people are wanting to sell you a product. Every aspect is examined at every angle under a hi-powered microscope to sell you the most product possible.

By what process does this happen?
First, before the camera shutter ever goes off, make-up, hair, wardrobe people are on the scene to make the artist or model look good. Trust me, in the right hands, Miss. Average-Looker can look like Miss. Dynamite in the hands of the right people. Now we are ready to shoot. I have spent 8 hours or more art directing photo-shoots just to get what will be in the end from the final edit from many photographs, a small handful of photographs. These will be used in public relations, promotion within the industry and in the case of that final lucky shot from the edit, the cover of the CD, the cover of the magazine, or the ad that is placed in publications around the country.

Now what?
In the days before digital technology, the film was sent out to processing houses and in 4 hours, you had hundreds of slides to examine. These were placed on a light table and using a magnification "loop”, every shot was checked. In 2010, with digital technology, the memory card is loaded onto the computer and you see the raw files within minutes. In both cases, Every shot is checked and studied to find the truly great photographs. Usually the final decision is made by a committee at the recommendation of the art director.

Time for retouch…
Let’s face it, nobody looks perfect (or even close) so we strive to make those good shots look even better. In the days before cheap digital technology, we would have hi-resolution scans made from the original transparency, load those into a $1 million Scitex for retouch, put those on screen and comb over everything. In 2010 the method is the same but the tools have changed. If you have a computer with good processing power and $2K for Adobe Creative Suite, you have the tools (but not necessarily the expertise and eye).

Every blemish, every wrinkle, imperfect skin tone or variations in skin tone, every roll of fat… everything. It is retouched. How much? Just as Alfresco said, that’s up to the art director. As a rule, I always try to walk the line. You want people to look great, but not “plastic”. These days, I think retouching is overdone. Personally, I think it stems from people having an unrealistic expectation of what people should look like. We want a “plastic perfection” even when I think there is an inherent beauty in human imperfection.

In the end, after much staring at a monitor, study and attention to detail, you have the "perfect" retouched photo. We are ready to head to the printer.

We’re not done…
If you know about printing, you know that every color you see printed on a page is actually made up of 4 basic colors (CMYK) cyan, magenta, yellow, black. If you look at a photograph on a printed page with enough magnification, you will see all these dots in combinations of the basic 4-colors, overlapping in various degrees. These combinations make all the colors seen by the eye. These colors are controlled on press. In other words, the color balance, density, etc. are adjustable by the pressman. Matchprints are furnished by prepress so the pressman can see what the final product should look like. When you have the right photo, you want the final reproduction to also reflect the hard work you have put into that one photograph. You don’t spend big bucks and time making something look great, just to have it fucked up by one careless pressman. To insure this, the publication will send a production person or art director to “OK” the final press sheet. Once that sheet is OK’d, all other press sheets are printed to match that approved press sheet. If it doesn’t, the printer eats the cost for a reprint to do it right.

So back to that question, is film or digital photography better? IMO, there are aspects of both that have their advantages. I guess its like the old argument is analog better than digital recording? There are those that swear by both. Maybe somewhere in the middle? I do sure miss the "human" in mass marketing though. I think after the past couple of years, maybe the pendulum will swing back and seeing a less than overly-perfect-plastic-looking person on that magazine cover will be cool again. At least, I hope so.

 

[marilyn]

Ron, Brick, most of us hear of touch ups on magazines,and Ads,and pics, but I had no idea about all the behind the scenes stuff, and how technical it really is....thats alot of work.

I always learn from you guys....

Ron, thanks for the photo tips you sent me...I know my questions are so small and elementary, but you take the time to respond and are always so nice to mereally appreciate it.

 

[Phidias]

We want a “plastic perfection” even when I think there is an inherent beauty in human imperfection.