1. It has come to the attention of forum staff that Dollshe Craft has ceased communications with dealers and customers, has failed to provide promised refunds for the excessive waits, and now has wait times surpassing 5 years in some cases. Forum staff are also concerned as there are claims being put forth that Dollshe plans to close down their doll making company. Due to the instability of the company, the lack of communication, the lack of promised refunds, and the wait times now surpassing 5 years, we strongly urge members to research the current state of this company very carefully and thoroughly before deciding to place an order. For more information please see the Dollshe waiting room. Do not assume this cannot happen to you or that your order will be different.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dollshe Craft and all dolls created by Dollshe, including any dolls created under his new or future companies, including Club Coco BJD are now banned from Den of Angels. Dollshe and the sculptor may not advertise his products on this forum. Sales may not be discussed, no news threads may be posted regarding new releases. This ban does not impact any dolls by Dollshe ordered by November 8, 2023. Any dolls ordered after November 8, 2023, regardless of the date the sculpt was released, are banned from this forum as are any dolls released under his new or future companies including but not limited to Club Coco BJD. This ban does not apply to other company dolls cast by Dollshe as part of a casting agreement between him and the actual sculpt or company and those dolls may still be discussed on the forum. Please come to Ask the Moderators if you have any questions.
    Dismiss Notice

Photo edits - more fake in a fake world?

Jan 5, 2008

    1. I have to smile at all the comments about the "no-brainer" of editing. Everyone does it. It's the way of the world. It's the norm. True enough, but on the flip side what is "real" anymore? Everything is faked. Photo edited to reshape the human form. Photos edited to exploit an ignorant public in food ads. Photography has become an "art" that is used to not only inform, but also misinform people. People shouldn't have to expect lies so that they need to adjust themselves to perceive the truth.

      I'd rather have "real" instead of "pretty" any day. Give me "character" rather than "perfection". This is why I stopped buying magazines and won't base any decision on purchasing on company pictures. I'm tired of being lied to.

      As for collectors who have no intention to mislead people or sell, experimenting with different photo effects can be fun. Play with photography and in turn, play with how you want to present your doll. Taking pictures of your dolls should be for YOU, not for faceless names on a forum.
       
    2. I just wanted to add a little to my previous comments as people are talking about the Art side of photography now.

      Speaking solely from an artistic point of view as opposed to commercial as thats more often than not what we see here in the galleries, photography isn't simply about capturing the world as it exists in that moment. It is an art form that I find regularly comes under scrutiny by those who honestly are very naive about the processes and techniques involved and what goes into creating a good photograph and thus underestimate its value as a medium and what should and shouldn't be done with it.

      Put it this way, you wouldn't look at an impressionistic painting and turn to the artist and tell them that because it isn't a 100% accurate representation of the subject that they are in fact faking and misrepresenting it regardless of artistic intention and choices would you?

      Yes there are disciplines within photography that are all about documenting things, street photography, war photography and documentary photography for example. They're all just as valid as any other form of photography but they're not the be all and end all.
      A camera is just a tool for transfering what's in your head into a tangible form, the same way a canvas and paint brushes are to a painter.

      I actually had someone in one of my recent gallery threads ask if I'd edited my photos, she didn't do it intentionally but she asked in such a way that suggested perhaps I should be ashamed of the fact I'd rather heavily edited my photos in photoshop.
      To do so was an artistic choice. I wanted to achieve an effect similar to what's known as 'Cross processing' an effect that's very much impossible to achieve in-camera (as the name suggests it's done during processing of film, traditionally -and this is an oversimplifaction- by using the wrong chemicals while processing to effect the colours to the point they look very unnatural), I chose to do so because the aesthetic appeals to me, I enjoy trying to replicate it and it had the look I was trying to get across, I don't think there's anything 'fake' or 'wrong' about that.
       
    3. Photoshop or photo editing is perfectly fine for pictures, as long as you don't plan on selling the doll with those as references.
       
    4. The ethics of editing a picture really depends on the purpuse of the picture. I think we all agree that if one is trying to sell a doll then the picture should be as accurate a depiction of the doll as possible. I don't see that this necessarily precludes and adjustments to the picture: if I (for reasons outside my control) end up taking a picture of a doll I'm selling in poor lighting conditions, I would definatly consider brightening the picture up to more accurately portray the doll. Counter to this, editing the picture to remove scratches or damage would obviously be a negative. If I'm simply taking photos to put up on my Flickr site, then it's surely fair to do whatever I like to the photo to make it look like I'd like it to look. I could sepia tone it, give it a frame, invert the colours, or draw a mustache on it! As long as I'm in no way pretending it's something that it's not, ethics don't come into it.
       
    5. I think that you can present an image of you doll to make it look its best that is fantastic.You work on the lighting ,make color sharper etc. But to purposely edit out badly fused hands or seam lines that stand out 2 inches, then no its wrong. Its misleading and false advertising.

      But to have a shot with a great face up ect and your doll shows up with out a face up that shows you what your doll *could* look like. Now with real people that are edited either by photing editing or plastic surgery I agree with you 100% and yes there are MILLIONS of women ,young and old fat or thin that feel that way towards the modeling industry.
       
    6. I don't see much of a problem... I mean it depends on who's doing it, I can for sure see it wrong for a company to seriously edit the photos of their dolls on their site and try to sell them... but on the other hand, if an owner does a photoshoot and wants to add some special effects to it, I'd say go ahead! Have fun! :D
       
    7. i see no problem in editing a picture-i plan on doing that as soon as i can mooch my roomie's camera.
      but it would be wise to mark edited pics as edited-so as not to deceive people.
      although i agree that edited pics of dolls or things for sale to hide inperfections is wrong
       
    8. I think the type of editing might be a bit different. I mean, it is not like we edit photos to give our dolls a tummy tuck or get rid of acne, and the dolls aren't really a representation of reality anyways. I can understand altering a picture with gorgeous lighting where the doll's wig is slipping of just enough to ruin it. I can't see why the way our dolls look would ever infuriate people in the self conscious way skinny girls made even skinnier on the cover of a magazine would.
       
    9. Some people take pictures of thier doll just to share their doll with others. Other people take a picture of a doll and their intent is for that pic to be a piece of art in its own right. Editing a photo is just another part of the artistic process. I've developed film and made my own prints in college and there are various techniques a person can use when making prints to alter the image to suit the artist's vision. Now that digital cameras are so popular, people are using software to do the same things. There really isn't anything surprising or not kosher about this--photo editing is just part of working with the medium.
       
    10. I think editing the photos is ok as long as it's for lighting, saturation and such, i tend to do that in my pics, and also edit a bit the colors to make them prettier...
      But as some people said, doing it to make a doll more beautiful than it is, to hide damages in sales/auction and such thing is wrong 'cause it fools people about the reality of the doll.
       
    11. I really don't like photo editing at all, with dolls. Be it with personal pictures or with selling pictures. I prefer the imperfection, photo edited photos lack something to me, something I can't explain.
       
    12. as with what others have said, sales thread pictures shouldn't be manipulated in ways to make the doll apear other than what it does in real life. But they should be manipulated to clearly show what the doll is in real life. Its a two side coin. If you take horrible pictures and the doll looks more yellow or ect than it would in real life than you should fix it because that is also false advertising unless you dont know how to fix the pics and say they are off color or bad lighting.

      Other than the sales thread or the "this is a picture of my doll" in the databases (because people look to databases to be the actual look of the doll) there is really no call to say photoshoping to make a doll look different than it does in real life is morally wrong.

      There is nothing wrong with an artist painting a landscape that is all greens in shades of red or orange. Its is just artistic license and everyone knows it.

      In the same way photostories and photoshoots are like illustrations or portraits from a story. They are ment to show what is happening in the story, not what your doll looked like under your photography skills, a certain type of lighting, or at a certain angle for references for a future buyer. They arent meant to be references for buyers, that is what the doll sculpt database is for.

      Photostories and such are purely art and should be viewed as art and not held to strict regulations about photoshopping and lighting and such because thats not the point unless it is a contest of artistic skill where regulations come into play to make things fair.

      I mean would you look at a artistic photograph taken for an art gallary and criticise the fact that the tellephone booth in the picture was shown in black and white and high contrast because someone might fall in love with it, buy it, and then be mad that it was really red and didnt look like it did in the picture. The buyer would be criticised for looking at art and assuming it mimiced reality exactly instead of looking at an actual catalogue picture of the item.
       
    13. I believe it is ok to edit photos to an extent. Such as fixing poor lighting or adjusting colors to a reasonable level. Because some people may not have very high quality cameras, or nowhere to put their doll so they can be lit properly for photos (especially for people in the cold states) However, I think it is not right to change anything major, such as smudging a line here and there, to change the appearance of your doll. Unless you state that you have when posting the image. That way no one is upset that their doll looks nothing like the one in the photo.
       
    14. I find this comment interesting... because to me they are just different techniques or methods. Some people prefer to put more effort into the original photo, and some prefer to put that effort in during post-processing. For me, I don't have a great camera. Yes, I could shell out $700 on a nice DSLR, or I could set up a studio with special lights. But when I'm taking photos pretty much just for my own enjoyment, I find that unnecessary when I can clean up my photos in a program instead.

      Photography is hard, yes. You have to learn a lot about lighting, how to use different depths of field, white balance, shutter speed, and a slew of other things about which I am clueless. But learning all the nuances of Photoshop... masking, curves, blend modes, using high-pass masking to selectively sharpen images, etc... that's hard too. =P I'm STILL learning, and I've been working at it for almost a decade now. I don't think it's any less of an art form, really, if used well.

      Plus, I really love working in Photoshop and doing photo retouching. The problem-solving process is so much fun for me. "How am I going to mask off this area of the image best? By channel mixing or by utilizing a color range selection then refining the selection edges?" "Which blend mode on the curves layer will give me the best contrast and color balance?" That in and of itself is actually more of a hobby for me than the original photography. I enjoy it more, so I put more effort into it. Does that make me a "bad" photographer? Maybe... probably. But I think it just means that my skills and preferences are different. Someone else may be a great photographer and know nothing about Photoshop, capturing beautiful images without post-processing assistance. Does that make their end product any better? Maybe, maybe not. (Though I love to do it, I'm not a great photo retoucher, and I'm okay with that. I'm not entering any contests... I just like to enjoy my doll photos.) Does it mean that I "cheated", or that I somehow failed because I post-process images? I personally don't believe so, though some may think that.

      In the end, I believe it's up to personal preference. Zagzagael brought up a good point, in that photographers are idealizing images from the get-go with special lighting and setup. If you use diffused lighting to get the right effect in the first place, is that better or worse than creating the same effect later digitally? To me, it's all the same.

      Besides, the very point of art is to evoke an emotion or to communicate something, I believe. Not whether the subject is "authentic" or "really looks like that".

      PS - On a side note, River, I also love the cross-processed look, and have experienced some of the same reactions when people see the effect if they aren't used to it. =P
       
    15. Well, I don't think it's wrong. The main reason people have a problem with the model issue is it gives young women (and men) the idea that they have to be this way in a society view.

      To say that editing is wrong though.. then how far do you go before it is wrong? Adjusting the brightness? Making just one color brighter to emphasize? Completely changing the color of something.. or warping it further? It's hard to define such a line..

      For me, I think it is fine to edit photos any way to make it look as close to real life as possible. I can't afford (due to space and finance) really good lighting at the moment, so I have to adjust the settings of my photos to make them look how I see them in person. I don't find anything wrong with this.

      Photography is art afterall. It is the same arguement as traditional art versus computer art. You have the ability to undo and perfect, rather than try harder to capture something perfectly as-is.

      I agree completely with Taco's post.
       
    16. I agree with most that has been said here.
      Editing an image to make a nicer/sharper/more interesting image: no problem at all.
      Altering an image to create things that are not there, to hide things or simply to create a non-realistic image of a doll in case you are selling it: bad idea.

      When I ordered my doll, I searched for a lot of owner pics as well to get a clear look of what she would look like in real life. The company shots are probably deceiving.
      And I do understand this. They want to sell their products, so they make them look as good and special as possible. Too bad reality can get lost somewhere in this process....
       
    17. It's wrong to edit photos if you're going to sell a doll to someone, because that's deliberately misleading someone. It's perfectly fine to edit photos for an artistic purpose; ie, from photoshoots, for yourself, to show your friends, etc.

      (In my opinion.)
       
    18. In my personal opinion, editing a photo depends on the context of the edit. Selling something to someone requires as much honesty as possible--fixing lighting, colour, etc. to reflect how the doll actually looks is one thing. Completely altering the doll's faceup, colouring, height, shape, etc. is dishonest and wrong. To me, that's deliberately misleading, while brightness and contrast is often necessary in order to bring out more lifelike colours.

      Artistically, people have been manipulating reality with photography since the dawn of the medium. Forced perspective is one of the easiest photo "manipulations" and can completely alter the reality of the subject. (It's the means of choice for UFO photos. XD) It makes a really great fake photo with fairly little editing.
       
    19. I guess there's no real debate that masking flaws on a sales picture is bad. It's not only bad, it's dishonest. But is changing the lightning on a sales pic equally bad? I'd say it depends on the purpose. If you're lightning a picture because it wasn't possible to see details properly on the original, I'd say it was ok. Colour balance that shows a potential yellowing better? by all means, do so! As long as you're not deliberately trying to mislead a potential buyer, I don't see anything wrong with editing even pictures of stuff for sale.

      Editing your own pictures? Of course. That's part of the whole art process a photoshoot is. I don't think I've posted a single picture of my doll that hasn't been photoshopped to some degree. Sometimes it's just colour/light enhancement, sometimes a lot more. I usually run a softening filter of some sort on the picture because I personally like that effect.

      And sometime I go totally overboard like on this one:
      [​IMG]
      where no one can have any doubts that we're talking about a photoshopped image. Or.. if they truly believe that the doll looks like this.. I'd say... they should study the whole concept of BJD's some more ;)

      I'm not usually saying that my pics has been photoshopped because I think it's pretty obvious. And I don't see anything wrong with it, either. I photoshop my 3D renders just the same. They're exactely like a photo, just computer generated. And sometimes they need colour/light correction as well as a "real" photo :)
       
    20. I tend to photoshop all my photos as a matter of course, whether they be of dolls, landscapes, or people. Everything looks better with the hue sauration turned just *slightly* up, or the shadow and midtone scuttled around to fix the histogram. And when you're taking quick snapshots, or photographing outdoors, or in inclement weather, it's sometimes just easier to get the raw data and gussy it up later :)

      Also, Trekkie, it took me a few seconds to work out what you'd done to that picture :D That's ace.