This has pretty much become routine these days. No photo on the cover of any magazine or a pinup or poster or hell even photos of fruit in a fridge goes to print without a fine scrubbing in photoshop.

See:
Retouch guru 1
Retouch guru 2

If anything postwork trains you for a popular and lucrative job in the CG industry LOL

It's one thing when postworking is used as a matter of deliberate deception in advertising for a product that's being offered for sale.  It's another matter entirely when postworking is done for purely artistic reasons -- even if the artwork is for sale.  That's no more illegitimate than a painter adding more / different paint onto a canvas in order to improve the picture in the hopes of getting a better price for their work.

But patently false claims of "Take our pill and lose 150 lbs in one week!  And here's the pictures to PROVE it!" -- that's a different story, obviously.

Forbidding postwork in 3D?  That's about like saying that no woman should ever wear makeup.  Or that no car should ever be detailed or polished.

sigh  purists...........

It's the stick on hair and the stick on clothes that get me and it's in the 3D galeries when it's mixed medium

That's merely a matter of classification -- little more than a clerical problem.  But if they start telling you that you'll look like the girl in the picture if you buy their Special Heatlh MIx -- then there's a more serious issue involved.

Although it's been ever thus.........

Thanks for posting that ghonma. 

As far as the product pic I posted, it does say it's a simulation only. Why couldn't they use real photos of before and after? Could it be because they couldn't get results that good in real life? 

I'm just saying unaltered origanal face value work has value. What a difference!

Quote - As far as the product pic I posted, it does say it's a simulation only. Why couldn't they use real photos of before and after? Could it be because they couldn't get results that good in real life? 

Very likely not.  At least not without surgery.  And that's why such advertisements are deceptive.  They prey on people's vanity and create false hopes.

Quote - I'm just saying unaltered origanal face value work has value. What a difference!

It depends upon how you define "original face value work".  That statement could be interpreted in any number of different ways.  "Original face value" might be interpreted to mean the way that a person looks immediately after they wake up first thing in the morning.  While some might believe that such an unretouched appearance is somehow more "honest" -- I personally prefer it after they've postworked themselves by brushing their teeth, showering, washing their hair, putting on makeup (for the girls) and gotten ready for the day.  What a difference!

Postworking in such a context is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.  It's also perfectly legitimate in other types of artistic endeavors -- liike 3D work.

Creating a model in one application, and then applying textures to the model in a different application could be defined as "postwork".  But without such postworking -- all that you'd have would be a bare model -- likely with no life to it.

Quote - Notice the fine print. Only a simulation! This is a good example of why the statement no post work has value in 3D and in the real world if you ask me.

LOL, whomever falls for those kinds of ads needs to have their head examined anyways... or postworked or shrinked or some sort of a rality check.

It's always hilarious to me to watch those old Hollywood movies from the 30's and 40's -- in scenes where the female star wakes up first thing in the morning with her hair perfectly done (not a strand out of place), and her makeup immaculate.  This -- after she had supposedly slept all night.  And, of course, when the maid comes into the bedroom & wakes her lady up the actress is instantly served breakfast........in reality: most people urgently need to do something else immediately after waking up first thing in the morning................

It's also hilarious to see actresses in old movies & TV shows portraying supposedly brand-new mothers while holding a 4-month-old "newborn".  The actress herself -- who is supposed to have just given birth -- looking like she's just come out of the beauty shop, instead.  :laugh:

*It's also hilarious to see actresses in old movies & TV shows portraying supposedly brand-new mothers while holding a 4-month-old "newborn".

• I've been told, for shows made in the UK, unless it's a 'reality' show (grey area), it is actually against the law to have a newborn in a drama production.. it's against the child labour laws. they have to use an older child.

over here, almost all babies used are twins or triplets (because of the limited number of hours you can shoot with one).

The Hayes Commission set some standards back in the 30s that lasted until the late 60s, with (I think) 14 main rules of things you couldn;t' show, like 2 people in one bed (which is where all those twin bed scenes came from..;)

Of course, aside from stop motion monsters, and glycerined lenses, they couldn't do all that much postwork back then.

XENOPHONZ wrote
"It's always hilarious to me to watch those old Hollywood movies from the 30's and 40's -- in scenes where the female star wakes up first thing in the morning with her hair perfectly done (not a strand out of place)," 

The hairspray back then was like instant motorcycle helmet.

"most people urgently need to do something else immediately after waking up first thing in the morning." go home and get dressed for work?

Quote - go home and get dressed for work?

If the "work" is all done in the proverbial 'one room'.

Quote - over here, almost all babies used are twins or triplets (because of the limited number of hours you can shoot with one).

The Hayes Commission set some standards back in the 30s that lasted until the late 60s, with (I think) 14 main rules of things you couldn;t' show, like 2 people in one bed (which is where all those twin bed scenes came from..;)

Of course, aside from stop motion monsters, and glycerined lenses, they couldn't do all that much postwork back then.

I have a set of identical twin nieces who appeared as toddlers in a Hollywood movie.  The movie's director came to their hometown, looked in a local directory for twins -- spotted a listing of two girls of the right age, and then gave my sister and her husband a call.  My nieces portrayed the (solo) female lead as a little girl - splitting the duties between them for various takes.

So, yes -- that's how it's done with young children in movies & TV in the States.

I don't know how much they were paid.  Probably not a lot.  Standard scale for extras, maybe.  Whatever that is.

Heh.......I also once worked in the offices of the Army Corps of Engineers in a southern city.  One day, an announcement was made that a movie group which was doing location shots in town was looking for random people to serve as extras.  One secretary in particular nearly knocked people over in her haste to run out of the office door and down the 2-3 blocks to the casting area.  snort  Still makes me laugh thinking about it even today.  IIRC, it was a fairly large Hollywood production.

XENOPHONZ wrote
"It's one thing when postworking is used as a matter of deliberate deception in advertising for a product that's being offered for sale.  It's another matter entirely when postworking is done for purely artistic reasons"
 

So how would we classify the celeb's image on the cover of a magazine? Deliberate deception or purely artistic? The artists deserve a lot more of the credit. 

I thought about that.

Yep, it's called "Hope in a Bottle"

There is no cure for cellulite.

I won't link any examples for fear of kicking off some powerful nightmares, but the most horrifying postwork I have ever seen in my life was when I stumbled across a site for child pageant photos. (What I had been looking for prior to that I don't even remember, as this site truly did scourge it, and just about everything from ages three to five, from my memory immediately.) They offered a list of retouching services such as "add doll eyes" and "tear removal". I really wasn't kidding about the nightmares. Really. Not even just a little bit. If you have strong google-fu and a stronger constitution, search around a bit and you'll eventually find examples, I'm sure. It struck me as hilarious that so many people working with 3D images are working so hard to achieve photorealism, and these photographers were going just as far out of their way to avoid it, though, that's for sure.

Quote - I won't link any examples for fear of kicking off some powerful nightmares, but the most horrifying postwork I have ever seen in my life was when I stumbled across a site for child pageant photos. (What I had been looking for prior to that I don't even remember, as this site truly did scourge it, and just about everything from ages three to five, from my memory immediately.) They offered a list of retouching services such as "add doll eyes" and "tear removal". I really wasn't kidding about the nightmares. Really. Not even just a little bit. If you have strong google-fu and a stronger constitution, search around a bit and you'll eventually find examples, I'm sure. It struck me as hilarious that so many people working with 3D images are working so hard to achieve photorealism, and these photographers were going just as far out of their way to avoid it, though, that's for sure.

I know what you are talking about.  There was something in one of our local papers a couple months ago giving the link to a site where a women was doing photoshop manipulation of child pagent entries for the parents.

She turned the kids into what looked like plastic mannequins that didn't at all resemble the kid. Really bad post working actually.  And people paid her to do that to their kids!!!

Quote - Yep, it's called "Hope in a Bottle"

There is no cure for cellulite.

yes there is...

the Hellraiser Cure!

yes you can loose that unsightly cellulite! our team of Cenobites will remove it in a series of delicate operations*....***

*and your skin..

Quote - She turned the kids into what looked like plastic mannequins that didn't at all resemble the kid. Really bad post working actually.  And people paid her to do that to their kids!!!

Ayep. I swear, it's like I expected to hear, "OH MY GOD IT'S A PORE! GET IT OFF ME! GET IT OFF ME!" shrieked from the high heavens when I saw it. It really, really unnerved me to no end.

Quote - XENOSo how would we classify the celeb's image on the cover of a magazine? Deliberate deception or purely artistic? The artists deserve a lot more of the credit. 

I thought about that.

In the case of a magazine cover -- the customer is purchasing the magazine: not the girl.  The image of the girl herself is no different from any other fantasy cover art that helps to sell a novel.  If the customer wants a magazine with a pretty girl's picture on the front -- then the customer has gotten what they paid for.  So nobody was "cheated" in such a case.  Most potential customers wouldn't be interested in purchasing a magazine with a cover picture which featured pimples and cellulite.  Such an image might be technically defined as "real" -- just like what people see in their mirror first thing in the morning is "real".  But most of us don't go out in public looking like that.

Deception comes in when the photoshopped image is attempting to sell a separate product such as cremes, pills, etc.....and claiming (or implying) that the photoshopped image represents actual results from the use of their product.

But to sell a picture of a model?  Even an air-brushed one?  That's not deception in the sense that we are discussing here.  It's no more deceptive than any other fantasy that you care to name.  The customer has gotten what they paid for: the picture itself.

I doubt that the average purchaser feels cheated because they don't see zits.

The magazines aren't ripping people off, I agree. Stars do sell themselves or should we say promote themselves through these altered images. And I think people in general don't know how much they've been altered. Some stars go on to do diet books, endorsements on all kinds of products and programs based on the fact that they look or looked so darn good. Those altered images help them achieve that and that's show biz!  It's becoming more of farce all the time. That's why reality shows are such a big hit and they even generate sex symbols. Wow! All dirty and skanky, starving on a island with some other folks. Who'd of figured? So does it really matter this polishing act? It happens either way. I imagine somebody someplace might even think a zit was sexy .

Except that reality shows aren't that 'real' either. Behind that bunch of stranded people, the dozen girls wooing one guy, the wannabe singers and so on, there is a whole crew of script writers and directors and support techs that groom and coach them. That direct the flow of the show based on what the ratings are. That will often introduce fake 'events' for maximum impact.

It's basically the dramatic equivalent of pro wrestling... :)

Also about the airbrushed covers, it's all gonna become CG anyway. I can imagine a time, not too far away, when the art director just takes photos of his wife in the living room and gives them to the photoshop guys to jazz up for the next mag cover. And when a plastic NVIATWAS render is considered the epitome of realism :P

Quote - > Quote - XENOSo how would we classify the celeb's image on the cover of a magazine? Deliberate deception or purely artistic? The artists deserve a lot more of the credit. 

I thought about that.

 

In the case of a magazine cover -- the customer is purchasing the magazine: not the girl.  The image of the girl herself is no different from any other fantasy cover art that helps to sell a novel.  If the customer wants a magazine with a pretty girl's picture on the front -- then the customer has gotten what they paid for.  So nobody was "cheated" in such a case.  Most potential customers wouldn't be interested in purchasing a magazine with a cover picture which featured pimples and cellulite.  Such an image might be technically defined as "real" -- just like what people see in their mirror first thing in the morning is "real".  But most of us don't go out in public looking like that.

Deception comes in when the photoshopped image is attempting to sell a separate product such as cremes, pills, etc.....and claiming (or implying) that the photoshopped image represents actual results from the use of their product.

But to sell a picture of a model?  Even an air-brushed one?  That's not deception in the sense that we are discussing here.  It's no more deceptive than any other fantasy that you care to name.  The customer has gotten what they paid for: the picture itself.

I doubt that the average purchaser feels cheated because they don't see zits.

I think the magazine cover is the greater deception, and alot more insidious. Those magazine covers have resulted in generations of women, particularly young girls, having low self-esteem as they desperately try to emulate these "flawless" women that owe as much to art and artifice than natural beauty. And generations of men, who believe those doctored pics are not only attainable in real life, but the standard by which real women should be measured.

I would hope as postwork became more accessible to everyone the myth of the flawless beauty would at last wither away. But each time we have another "how can I achieve a realistic render in poser" thread and its another perfect woman, I have my doubts.

Quote -
I would hope as postwork became more accessible to everyone the myth of the flawless beauty would at last wither away. But each time we have another "how can I achieve a realistic render in poser" thread and its another perfect woman, I have my doubts.

You mean like this render?
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=443322

Hehehehe.  Seriously though,  I started a thread like this recently, and it had more to do with how to get more realistic shading and lighting than it did the beauty of the women in the examples.

@JustPatrick

Wow, serious doubletake, he looks so real.

Yeah, I saw your thread and read quite a bit of it... that's not what I'm talking about.

quote: Also about the airbrushed covers, it's all gonna become CG anyway. It already is. My current project for school (due tonight and I should be doing it right now but here I am) is to mix paint to create skin tones from reference images - from the web, magazines. Fashion magazines are the most frustrating to find natural tones because either the light tint is strong, the image has been sepia toned, or in the case of a skin mag, the image was overexposed with a green cast (had never noticed this before). In one ad for spray-on tan, the girl's skin was carrot colored and run through a difuse filter like 43 times. Meanwhile, a respected news magazine's photographer use excessive amount of flash, washing out the subject. It seems to me that CG will soon be more real than real reality. If only I could apply post to my real-world face so that I look stunning and beautiful to everyone that sees me daily.....

The artists that do all the image manipulation for the magazine covers do some incredible work. It's truly amazing what they can do with a picture of somebody. Like kalon said though, it is tragic when people start comparing themselves to an impossible reality not understanding that the person they're looking at doesn't look that good either. However some come pretty close.

Quote - ...It seems to me that CG will soon be more real than real reality...

It already is to many people.
'Reality' is a subjective term; it is subject to perception. All widely circulated media is digital and heavily manipulated/post worked. If a person's perception is based on hollywood/5th avenue media, then [sadly] that is more real to them than what they see everyday with their own eyes. 5th avenue (advertising) is particularily adept at this.

It is called 'creative marketing' by advertisers; i.e. create a market and then sell products to fill a perceived need.  How could they sell billions of dollars worth of make-up every year if everybody was happy with a no make up look?
They aim towards people's vanity, laziness, and ignorance. Universal human traits that we all share to some degree; so it is very effective.
-Need to lose weight?  Why work at it?  Pill X can do it for you...and you can gorge on cheesecake day and night to boot ;)
-Hey guys, want to have Penthouse Pets (the air brushed facimile, of course) cat fighting to crawl into your bed? Use Brand Y Aftershave...'scent is everything' ;)
It's just business. If the approach didn't work, it wouldn't be used. Blame it on the buyers as much as on the sellers. "It takes two to tango".

Quote - I would hope as postwork became more accessible to everyone the myth of the flawless beauty would at last wither away. But each time we have another "how can I achieve a realistic render in poser" thread and its another perfect woman, I have my doubts.

The problem here is that we seem to be going on the assumption that "the myth of flawless beauty" is something new -- and that a desire to achieve "flawless beauty" in young women is something new.

The quest for and the desire for flawless beauty has been around throughout the existence of the human race.  It didn't start when Photoshop was invented.  Sure -- the standard of beauty has varied from one historic era to another -- different attributes have been regarded as "beautiful" at different times.  But the inherent desire to be beautiful (it used to be called "vanity") has always been a strong, built-in part of the human psyche.  Photoshop didn't cause that to happen.  Photoshop has merely taken what was already there -- and catered to it.

Where we often make a mistake in these types of issues is over the idea that outside influences -- i.e. -- an air brushed photograph of a beautiful model -- CAUSE wrong-headed desires to flare up in some young girl's heart.  When in fact: the girl wouldn't be affected by the 'perfected' image at all -- if she didn't already have a bent in that direction in herself.

Much like a bottle of whiskey can be left sitting out on a table in an otherwise empty room.  Two men can see the bottle.  One mans looks at the bottle impassively, uninterested in any way.  While the other man just can't wait to snatch the bottle up in his hands & guzzle the contents.

It's what's in ourselves that causes the problems that we have in life.  Not what's outside of ourselves.  While it's true that certain things can no doubt serve as a catalyst to wrong desires, and can have a corrupting influence - it's also true that those outside catalysts are meaningless unless if the substance for the catalyst to work on is already present in someone's personality.  The outside influence needs a handle to grab hold of inside of the person in question.  Otherwise, the outside influence is powerless to do anything to them.

Go back and tell the artistic masters of former eras that they shouldn't have painted / sculpted their ideals of beauty in their own eras.  Because their actions made the average woman of their time feel inferior.

The only reason why the 'plain' woman feels inferior is because she's vain -- and she wants what the woman in the picture has.  While the woman in the picture is vain, too..........the difference being that she (temporarily) has what she wants.  But the natural beauty isn't satisfied, either -- and she's also going to have to deal with getting older and eventually losing the thing that she's chosen to define herself & her personal worth by.

It's all a matter of human nature in conflict with itself.  Forbidding the postworking of beautiful models in pictures on magazine covers wouldn't solve the problem.

There are people who aren't as bad about this as others -- but it's a disease that everyone has.  All of us are vain.  Men included.

It takes two to tango. True! If I'm getting this right though it means deceptive marketing techniques are all right because the consumer is stupid and longs to be suckered. It's a fact people believe what they want  in many cases. Reality can be a drag for some.  

Quote - It takes two to tango. True! If I'm getting this right though it means deceptive marketing techniques are all right because the consumer is stupid and longs to be suckered. 

It means that the world is the way it is... and people are the way they are.
And not stupid, ignorant. There is a difference.
"Let the buyer beware" is an ancient saying.

EDIT - also "Look before you leap."

Quote - It takes two to tango. True! If I'm getting this right though it means deceptive marketing techniques are all right because the consumer is stupid and longs to be suckered. It's a fact people believe what they want  in many cases. Reality can be a drag for some.  

Oh.....I don't think that anyone is contending that it's morally right (or wrong) -- just that it's reality........which can be a drag for some to acknowledge.

@XENOPHONZ

On the whole, I tend to agree with what you've stated. There has always been the pursuit of that elusive ideal - beauty, however it is defined at the time. But the pursuit changed, I think, with the advent of photography. Because the camera purportedly tells the truth. So suddenly, the ideal is not so elusive, here it is captured on film.

Quote - The only reason why the 'plain' woman feels inferior is because she's vain -- and she wants what the woman in the picture has.  While the woman in the picture is vain, too..........the difference being that she (temporarily) has what she wants...  (snip)

Yes, she very likely is vain also, but what she really knows is that she doesn't possess the ideal either... outside of postworked photographs.

I've known some who've come awfully close to my own ideal .

But I think that it's true -- if we ever saw an angel in its full, undisguised nature we'd likely drop dead of shock.  The sight of true perfection would do that to people.  Because we'd realize just how terribly inferior even the best of us actually are.

Blame it on the buyers as much as on the sellers. "It takes two to tango". I never let a stupid advertisement stop me from purchasing a good product. If I did, it would be difficult to shop. There's probably someone in an office somewhere counting my every purchase as evidence of the effectiveness of his or her idiotic, insulting ad campaign that I completely missed, having abandoned tv as the worthless, mind-sucking wasteland that it is.

8/24/07

Enhancing advertising pictures, magazine covers, and even the postwork done on renders submitted to 3D galleries do not really disturb me. Practice the adage, "Let the buyer beware." Consumers need to take responsibility for themselves.

The time will come, however, when artists will be able to reproduce the likeness of about anyone and put a person into almost any situation/pose/invironment they want. It will not be too long before we can make realistic movies with Bogart as Captain Kirk, and Elvis as Spoc.

Altering the pictures used in photographic journalism frightens me. I believe that this is truely deceptive. If it is not already here, the time will come when we will not be able to believe our eyes (when it comes to picture and video "evidence"). There are already many well publicized incidents of retouched or altered photographs used to falsely enhance news stories. What will happen when even experts can no longer tell that a picture has been "touched up?"

LMK

The time coming when we can't believe our eyes is here, but it has been for awhile now. Take David Copperfeild for instance and other magicians. You touched on the reason it disturbs me. It's about photoghraph credibility. The other is that people are getting desensitized. Accepting it as real. 

What happens to the human mind when it is surrounded by lures and lies on a constant daily basis. Can we live with our guard up every minute? Is it healthy looking at every add and photo in a magazine knowing within ourselves that it only looks that good because they made it look better than it really is. It's not a cartoon picture. It's a perfect looking juicy burger with a super model taking a bite or a huge billboard sign with a bunch of shrimp on the barbie. Nobody can hide. I've been fooled a time or two myself by these advertisements. Everybody gets hungry. : )

*But I think that it's true -- if we ever saw an angel in its full, undisguised nature we'd likely drop dead of shock.  The sight of true perfection would do that to people.  Because we'd realize just how terribly inferior even the best of us actually are.

*It's possible that meeting a genuine, postcode-Paradise angel would be a bit of a jolt to the system, but it would have nothing to do with the angel's perfection.   As imperfect creatures, we self-evidently aren't capable of identifying perfection.   We may think we can and we may even be right, but we can't possibly be sure.   Artists may like to aim at their own idea of what constitutes perfection, but artists' admirers also have a disconcerting tendency to ascribe perfection to their heroes.   Fans of Mozart are given to making daft claims about the "perfection" of his music.   My response is:  "How do you know?"  

There was a commission, back in the Eighties,  that studied every painting in the world attributed to Rembrandt and eliminated more than half (I think - my memory is imperfect) as not being genuinely the work of the artist .   Often, they had identified a fault in the draughtmanship and reasoned that a painting with a conspicuous defect could not be by Rembrandt - about as circular an argument as you could find.  Ironically, I don't think that Rembrandt ever attempted to create perfect beauty.   Although he experimented widely with his technique, beauty for beauty's sake doesn't seem to have been his aim.   Just as well, because some of the folks he painted could have scared horses at a hundred paces.

Quote - Altering the pictures used in photographic journalism frightens me. I believe that this is truely deceptive. If it is not already here, the time will come when we will not be able to believe our eyes (when it comes to picture and video "evidence"). There are already many well publicized incidents of retouched or altered photographs used to falsely enhance news stories. What will happen when even experts can no longer tell that a picture has been "touched up?"

Quote - What happens to the human mind when it is surrounded by lures and lies on a constant daily basis. Can we live with our guard up every minute? Is it healthy looking at every add and photo in a magazine knowing within ourselves that it only looks that good because they made it look better than it really is. It's not a cartoon picture. It's a perfect looking juicy burger with a super model taking a bite or a huge billboard sign with a bunch of shrimp on the barbie. Nobody can hide. I've been fooled a time or two myself by these advertisements. Everybody gets hungry. : )

Interesting points and true. I think it means we've come full circle and the idea of the camera capturing the truth is caput. We're now back to all visuals being artistic interpretations. The danger is that it's going to take a while for that to sink into the collective societal conciousness.

And as for the angel of perfection, I'm not buying it... Unless this angel appears differently to every person. Because despite advertising efforts to program us, people still tend to have their own notion of ideal beauty. There are, of course, commonalities -- can't think offhand of any society that worships the pimple, but, hey, I may have missed that one.

*Notice the fine print. Only a simulation! This is a good example of why the statement no post work has value in 3D and in the real world if you ask me.

*So because someone abuses postwork, no one is allowed to postwork their images?
Most people who postwork their poser images aren't trying to sell anything. Well except for a fantasy.

Perfect:

1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman. 2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement: There is no perfect legal code. The proportions of this temple are almost perfect. 3. exactly fitting the need in a certain situation or for a certain purpose: a perfect actor to play Mr. Micawber; a perfect saw for cutting out keyholes. 4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings: a perfect apple; the perfect crime.

 I was using perfect like in number 1-4. 
Angels aren't perfect.

Peelo, use it all you like. This is a philosophical thread only. Some of it about the ethics and some of just philosophy.

I'm merely suggesting that your initial conclusion is extreme. Yes, in princible, I agree : People are selling us the impossible, the unatainable and making us chase some perverse ideal that can never be reached. But to say that all postwork is bad, is to my view extreme. But human beings are capable of telling the difference between what's real and what's not, otherwise we couldn't tell when we are sleeping and when we are awake. Luckily most of us have friends who we can look to, when we need to be reminded of what's real. None of my friends look like underwear models and neither do I. Fantasy in itself is not unhealthy, sometimes escapism can help in dealing with the ordinary and the mundane. We have the ability to tell the difference between the real and the dream, we just need to use this ability better these days. But the ability is there.

Kill your God, Kill your TV- like Marilyn Manson said.

*"If it is not already here, the time will come when we will not be able to believe our eyes (when it comes to picture and video "evidence"). There are already many well publicized incidents of retouched or altered photographs used to falsely enhance news stories. What will happen when even experts can no longer tell that a picture has been "touched up?"

*In the early days of speed cameras and traffic-light cameras in the UK, they were film-only, because the evidence of digital images could not be held to be reliable, whereas fiddling negatives (as opposed to prints) has always been a major challenge.   Even though digital images have become steadily easier to doctor, this restriction on the use of digital evidence has long since been lifted, mainly because film cameras run out of film (and so miss perps and lose out on revenue from fines), whereas digital traffic cameras, having a dial-up link direct to Mammon Central, make the Duracell Bunny look like a bone-idle slacker.

It probably is fair to say that nobody is going to bother fiddling a photograph, just for the sake of pretending that an innocent Joe Public jumped a red on the A303, but the ability to do so exists.  Whether a government will be able to resist the temptation to abuse this technology, for the sake of discrediting its opponents, is another matter.   I'm not optimistic.

The video version of the nightmare is still some way off, I suspect, but still a realistic threat.  

Quote - I'm merely suggesting that your initial conclusion is extreme. Yes, in princible, I agree : People are selling us the impossible, the unatainable and making us chase some perverse ideal that can never be reached. But to say that all postwork is bad, is to my view extreme. But human beings are capable of telling the difference between what's real and what's not, otherwise we couldn't tell when we are sleeping and when we are awake. Luckily most of us have friends who we can look to, when we need to be reminded of what's real. None of my friends look like underwear models and neither do I. Fantasy in itself is not unhealthy, sometimes escapism can help in dealing with the ordinary and the mundane. We have the ability to tell the difference between the real and the dream, we just need to use this ability better these days. But the ability is there.

Kill your God, Kill your TV- like Marilyn Manson said.

Well, I took dogor's initial post as the bait to get the discussion going...

As for human beings being capable of telling the difference between what's real and what's not... I disagree. At least once a month there's at least one email sent around with pictures of something or another-- most people accept it as fact and forward it to everyone they know, a few people suspect photoshop and some just aren't sure. And that's the scariest part, the uncertainty. Is it real? Maybe, maybe not.

And you may set yourself up as the most discerning eye on the planet, but when you are fooled-- and you will be, how will you know?

I am definelty not *the most discerning eye on the planet, * but all I was suggesting is that the basic skill/ ablity to tell the difference between the real and the dream is something that every human being has. And what we are dealing with here, is a dream. (It belongs to the realm of the subconscious/fantasy.) We only need to cultivate/educate/train this ablity more. Yes we all get spammed with images of unatainable beauty and youth, but most of us know what those images really are. I am trying to be optimistic here; For every person who answers these false hopes, there are thousands if not more, who do not.  We are not as stupid as the advertisers think.

Well, it would be interesting if there was some good altered pictures to mix with some un altered pictures as a test to see if people could really tell the difference between the real and the fake altered photos. I can look at a magazine cover and tell it's fake right away. For one they don't have skin pores or acne scars, not even peach fuzz. Others are harder to identify. The magazine isn't trying to trick a pro who knows what to look for(just make it look dreamy). I'm talking about not loading it in a program and looking at it on a monitor. Just the naked eye. Simple yes or no answer. I'd say the percentage would work out at about 50% right and 50% wrong because that's the average you might get when people guess.

Quote - It's possible that meeting a genuine, postcode-Paradise angel would be a bit of a jolt to the system, but it would have nothing to do with the angel's perfection.   As imperfect creatures, we self-evidently aren't capable of identifying perfection.   We may think we can and we may even be right, but we can't possibly be sure.   Artists may like to aim at their own idea of what constitutes perfection, but artists' admirers also have a disconcerting tendency to ascribe perfection to their heroes.   Fans of Mozart are given to making daft claims about the "perfection" of his music.   My response is:  "How do you know?"

Taken from Daniel chapter 10 (emphasis mine):

10:4 And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by
the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel; 10:5 Then I lifted up
mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen,
whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: 10:6 His body also
was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and
his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to
polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a
multitude.

10:7 And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me
saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they
fled to hide themselves.

10:8 Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there
remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into
corruption, and I retained no strength.

10:9 Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of
his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward
the ground.

10:10 And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and
upon the palms of my hands.

10:11 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand
the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am
I now sent.

And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

10:12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day
that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself
before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.

10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and
twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help
me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy
people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

10:15 And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward
the ground, and I became dumb.

10:16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched
my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that
stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon
me, and I have retained no strength.

10:17 For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord?
for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither
is there breath left in me.

.......food for thought.  It makes me think.

Quote - There was a commission, back in the Eighties,  that studied every painting in the world attributed to Rembrandt and eliminated more than half (I think - my memory is imperfect) as not being genuinely the work of the artist .   Often, they had identified a fault in the draughtmanship and reasoned that a painting with a conspicuous defect could not be by Rembrandt - about as circular an argument as you could find.  Ironically, I don't think that Rembrandt ever attempted to create perfect beauty.   Although he experimented widely with his technique, beauty for beauty's sake doesn't seem to have been his aim.   Just as well, because some of the folks he painted could have scared horses at a hundred paces.

Da Vinci also did extensive visual studies of human deformities, recorded in his journals.

Job 4
18.  Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: