Were the Dove Ads Retouched?


After a New Yorker profile (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_collins/?yrail) implied that "king of the photo touchup" Pascal Dangin had airbrushed photos taken by Annie Leibovitz for Dove's high-profile "Campaign for Real Beauty (http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/home.asp)," the company issued a statement (http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/damage_control/were_the_real_dove_women_fake_dove_says_no_84430.a sp) last Friday explaining that Dangin had only removed dust and performed minor color corrections. Is it possible to determine whether the Dove photos (http://www.doveproage.com/ads_mag.asp) were retouched?


Maybe, but it would be very difficult. Amateur retouching can leave seams (http://arstechnica.com/guides/tweaks/mystery-2.ars/3) where two different images are spliced together. But in the case of an expert retoucher like Dangin, visible signs would have been diligently scrubbed away. Additionally, since images can be distorted when they are compressed into other file formats (http://www.doveproage.com/pdf/Michele.pdf) (PDF) or printed in a magazine, any apparent smudges or irregularities in one of the Dove photos might well be artifacts of the photo's reproduction, rather than signs of tampering.

Full Story here: http://www.slate.com/id/2191199/entry/2190760/

As I click the seam link in my first post you might wanna check this out...

http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/nike_rj.htm

Cool...

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

Here are the link for some more Photoshop Magic...

http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/index.htm

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

I can tell that the signature of Master Ricky Ladia is very much true... Master Mitz is that true?

Well folks to see is to believe... Photoshop or Photography?

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

Here are the link for some more Photoshop Magic...

http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/index.htm

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

He did a great job indeed however, he wasn't too meticulous at all as he forgot to fix the shadows at the right side corner of the 2nd picture of the basketball players ( shadows of the the light poles from the original picture).

He did a great job indeed however, he wasn't too meticulous at all as he forgot to fix the shadows at the right side corner of the picture ( shadows of the the light poles from the original picture).

Are you referring the "Big Love.."

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

the basketball players 2nd picture, right side corner shadows

sorry, I mean, left side.

As I click the seam link in my first post you might wanna check this out...

http://www.briandilg.com/imaging/nike_rj.htm

Cool...

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

I wonder which is cheaper... Asking a coliseum owner to have a photoshoot during the off-hours, or renting a small gym and photoshop it later to look like a huge coliseum. Surely, its expensive to get a very photoshop artist (definitely a pro, and not some hobbyist doing this as a favor), while it seems easier to just set-up the lights and take it without or very minimal photoshop....

I also didn't get why they didn't dress up the players with the real shirts and gear, and they also need to photoshop to alter their shirts... Seems a bit irrational to me...

I wonder which is cheaper... Asking a coliseum owner to have a photoshoot during the off-hours, or renting a small gym and photoshop it later to look like a huge coliseum. Surely, its expensive to get a very photoshop artist (definitely a pro, and not some hobbyist doing this as a favor), while it seems easier to just set-up the lights and take it without or very minimal photoshop....

I also didn't get why they didn't dress up the players with the real shirts and gear, and they also need to photoshop to alter their shirts... Seems a bit irrational to me...

You have a point Melvin... But well as we know there's no such cheap in the states...

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

I've been told that Photoshop artist who do the covers of the major glam mags get paid USD6,000 per cover.

I've been told that Photoshop artist who do the covers of the major glam mags get paid USD6,000 per cover.

That's lot of money Winston... Is that in US? I was thinking if they can give it here in the Philippine Company...

:Grin::Grin::Grin:

I wonder which is cheaper... Asking a coliseum owner to have a photoshoot during the off-hours, or renting a small gym and photoshop it later to look like a huge coliseum. Surely, its expensive to get a very photoshop artist (definitely a pro, and not some hobbyist doing this as a favor), while it seems easier to just set-up the lights and take it without or very minimal photoshop....

I also didn't get why they didn't dress up the players with the real shirts and gear, and they also need to photoshop to alter their shirts... Seems a bit irrational to me...

They only need one shot for multiple settings (i.e. coliseum/gym/outdoor) and multiple clothing for multiple applications? :D.

In the future we don't need photographers. Poser and IBL capable 3D software like Lightwave & Maya can do it all :D.

They only need one shot for multiple settings (i.e. coliseum/gym/outdoor) and multiple clothing for multiple applications? :D.

In the future we don't need photographers. Poser and IBL capable 3D software like Lightwave & Maya can do it all :D.

Hmmmm... If Sir Winston's estimate for Photoshop guys is spot-on, then it might cost more to do this via photoshop rather do the real thing... I understand the concept to that for one shot you get multiple settings, but again do why need get as much on-site and just select what they do old-school...

Most publishers/agencies are really pragmatic with regards to money, hence I'm thinking it might be cheaper to photoshop it (I know some agencies even outsource to cheaper sites like the Philippines)... Hence, thinking PSing is cheaper...

“no one wants to be the guy who drops three grand on an SLR, then leaves it in moron mode. No one wants a Ducati with training wheels.”


Which brings us full circle -- do you really need Photoshop? Is the future of image editing in full-featured suites like Photoshop? Or is the future of image editing for the average person much more likely to take the form of online applications? For most Flickr users and other casual photographers online tools like Picnik (http://www.picnik.com/) or Adobe’s own coming Photoshop Express (http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/10/another-tantali.html) seem capable of handling all their editing needs, so why then do we cling to Photoshop (or GIMP)?


Part of it seems to be the Ducati appeal — online editors don’t seem as serious, they seem like a form of training wheels, but that’s a stigma that’s rapidly changing. So where does that leave Photoshop? Would you give up Photoshop (or GIMP) for an online editor? Do we non-professionals really need Photoshop? Or do we just want to own a Ducati even if we can’t ride it very well?


Source: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2008/01/do-you-really-n.html


:Grin::Grin::Grin: