Set Photoshop to Thinspiration

[essentialsaltes]

It would be easy to make fun of fatness or cosplay, but I wish to probe the philosophical question:

At what point does a photo of you become not a photo of you?

Here is a retouched photo of me from New Year's.

Comments

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

I really wasn't concerned about the 'honesty' of the photo, at least in regard to others, but maybe something more like self-honesty. Do these people look at these photos and think "That's me!"

I can definitely see what you're saying about the Alice outfit. 'Here is the careful work I did, and here is how it would have looked if it matched the character's dimensions.'

I'm more concerned about the alterations to the face like in the other photo I linked. Do people recognize themselves when they see that image? I can't see how they would. I'm sure the line is very fuzzy, but there must be some line where a photo of you becomes a photo of not-you.

[colleency.livejournal.com]

In the other photo, it really seems like someone seeing what it's like to be photoshopped in the way that it's done in the media. I would have to compare it to people in the ads. Do they recognize that as a photo of themselves?

Really?!?

[hagdirt.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I seriously doubt anyone could think a heavily retouched photo is the "real" them. Particularly if the face is changed - there's a part of the brain dedicated very specifically to faces, and parts very specific to recognizing ourselves, and folks have done fun things figuring these out. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18501639
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v5/n9/full/nn907.html

Now, most of these cosplay images are retouched to make the subject look prettier, which I suspect is why this bothers people - it seems more dishonest than if they made the subjects uglier, even though it really isn't. I would venture that these retouched photos are an aspirational thing - and cosplay is by definition aspirational. It's a lot of effort spent looking like someone imaginary - and most imaginary people are better looking than we are. Very few of us will exactly match a character even if our costume details are perfect, and for those folks who are into reproduction, why not have a memento that fixes that problem? They're still walking around in public in their actual, non-perfect bodies and their careful costumes - that's the "real" experience, not the photo.

I've spent a sizeable portion of my professional career doing some of these tricks with Photoshop - swapping heads, sure, but mostly fixing shots where the photographer mis-represented the actual recipe. (Which happens a lot - leaving aside the actual food preparation, lighting and presentation can misrepresent something very thoroughly. Photography is never as truthful as we want to believe it is.) And I've actually 'Shopped a photo of myself in costume, including my face. And no, it is not "me."

This sort of work is well past mere "re-touching" and has gone into photo-illustration. It's honest if it's billed as such, and so far I haven't seen any evidence that it isn't. Where are you getting these before-and-after shots?

Re: Really?!?

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I seriously doubt anyone could think a heavily retouched photo is the "real" them.

I hope so.

The shots come from some Hungarian website. From context, many seem to be taken at cosplay cons, but I have no way of knowing how the subjects are representing them. As you and Richard have noted, there is a lot of artifice involved in any photograph. The studies you mention support the idea that these subjects would not be able to self-identify with the ultimate product. I hope that's the case.

It's like... I would not be happier if I pasted Harrison Ford's face on this. I'd be less happy. But I think some of these people would be happier if they erased themselves from the picture. Is that because their primary goal is to recreate the character (and their own existence in the photo is simply irrelevant) or is it because they actively want to erase themselves from the picture, which seems more unhealthy?

Re: Really?!?

[hagdirt.livejournal.com]

Hm. I don't think it's a matter of erasing themselves. At least, not more so than usual.

Looking at the site, the vast majority of the people being retouched are female. I think between the beauty-and-fitness industrial complex, and the constant basing of women's worth on their attractiveness, most women are encouraged to have a very fluid view of their physical appearance. (And, also, an insecure one, natch.) Consider the makeover, the crash diet, the facial. All of these are quick, transformative experiences that are supposed to make us the best "us" we can be. In fact, we are often heavily encouraged to participate in this sort of transformation, and have been since a very young age. (I suspect that straight guys are encouraged against this sort of thing - it's seen as suspicious behavior - but gay guys are certainly all over it.)

So, when the women of cosplay have the opportunity to make themselves look closer to the ideal - in this case, the character they're portraying - this isn't such a big issue. If we're always changing ourselves to look prettier anyway, why is retouching a blow to the psyche?

Re: Really?!?

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

I'd say the majority of human beings would like to be or look different than they really are.

From a book I'm reading now (yes, I am reading a fiction book--I'm more surprised than you):

"The American dream is and always has been to shed your old life and start a new one someplace else."

But assuming intent from website photos seems a little supercilious to me. Do you know for sure that the subject asked for the alterations, or did someone just do them?

When I saw the photo of the actual model that Ivan Albright painted, and the result at the Chicago ARt Institute years ago, I thought "Wow, that's not her!"

What about cubism, Picasso, etc.?