by machineman9 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:58 pm
Clearly a retouch, but so what? That is common with that style of photograph.
Can they please go and sort out real problems rather than people being artistic? Go sue every fashion magazine out there because chances are, they have retouched.
They claim the retouching is misleading about what the product can do... When the photo was taken, the conversion to digital format will produce 'misleading' results as it is not true to life. Changing the lighting will 'mislead' results as it is adjusting the real thing. Everything about photography is misleading because you never get a true-to-life photo. They probably could've achieved the same results if they spent a lot of work hours with the finest staff using specific photography techniques to achieve the same results as retouching. It would be hard, but it is possible. The retouch just made it quicker.
Look at all those 'eyelash extension' adverts. They even have it printed 'model used lash inserts'. I don't care if they admitted it was fake, the product does not achieve those results.
You won't hear a photographer buying the camera used in those photos and complaining that they didn't get the same results, because they have the sense to know that the first photographer did something different and they post processed differently.
Last edited by
machineman9 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People Eating Tasty Animals.
...!
...!