The Hacker Factor Blog

Lately I've been heavily focused on documenting my image analysis tools. (28 pages and nowhere near done.) Since I can't personally train everyone, I've turned this into a braindump.

For documenting everything, I've decided to use HTML and a nice piece of open source called 'htmldoc'. Using htmldoc, anyone can convert HTML into PDF -- complete with well-formatted chapters, hyperlinks, and even a table of contents. (That isn't all htmldoc can do, but it is all I need it for.)

Girls! Girls! Girls!

Of course, as I go over examples and focus on techniques, I can't help but start considering the ethics of photoshopping images. Advertisements immediately come to mind. For example, when Victoria's Secret removes shadows from a picture, it can be called "artistic". But what is it called when the clothing's pattern is drawn in?

Personally, I think I've written enough about Victoria's Secret. I mean, yes: they use Photoshop in their product photos. What about other clothing companies? The first place I looked was Macy's -- a nice family oriented store for real people. Unfortunately, they use Photoshop and fake settings too.

For example, what are the odds of a Macy's model posing on the beach, changing clothing, and posing again -- with the exact same waves in the background?

Then again, I've never seen an ad where they only changed one thing. Take the back-side photo as an example. What was so wrong with the model that the artist decided to alter her left leg, left butt cheek, and her left arm so much that she no longer has an elbow? (Check the luminance gradient: her elbow was digitally removed.) And did they really have to add the word "Guess" to her ass? (I'm guessing about guess -- they could have just grossly enhanced the black color, gold color, and text. Either way, it is not original.)

This isn't an isolated modification. ALL of the Macy's bathing suit images are digitally modified -- some better than others. I'd pick on the men, but the artist just cut out the background and digitally added abs (well, when they didn't forget to draw them in completely). However, the women are another story.

Hey Macy's: If you're going to Photoshop in a background, at least make sure it is a clean scan and not covered with black dust specs! (And I thought that ribs ran horizontally, not vertically... and don't get me started on her missing clavicle.)


What's behind the "Magic of Macy's"? Photoshop!

Taken for a Ride

This issue with faking product photos is not limited to clothing or online ads. In Wired Magazine is an ad for Bridgestone's Run Flat Tires (Wired Magazine, June 2009, page 57). Since I couldn't find it online, I scanned it in:



The problem with this photo is that some things are blurred (in motion) while others are not. As far as I know, there are only three ways to achieve a picture like this...

First, they could use a high-speed camera. This would freeze the car, board, and white line in the middle of the road. However, it would also freeze the tire and background. So this isn't what they did.

Second, they could attach the camera to the car, or have it in a pace vehicle running parallel to the car. This would make the car appear still, but everything not attached to the car (wood, white line in road) would be blurred. So that's not what they did either.

The third option: Photoshop.

Perhaps they should change their slogan to "Bridgestone: Passion for Photoshop".

Ethical Dilema

The rampant use of digital manipulations in advertisements is beginning to make me very concerned. If companies make sales by showing you doctored images of their products, isn't that a bait and switch? I mean, if Bridgestone's tires worked as well as they claim, then shouldn't they be able to use a real photo of their product? And if clothing companies need to touch up their clothing, then doesn't it mean that it won't look as good on you? (Unless you have beer goggles or Photoshop...)

Food manufactures are required to use real food in their advertisements. As one shutterbug wrote, "If you can shoot food, you can shoot anything". With food, you may only have minutes between setup and shot due to wilting, melting, and even color loss.

However, taking a picture of food is much more difficult than photographing a car, or even a bikini-clad model. It isn't like the car will get soggy after a few minutes in a bowl of milk. And if run-flat tires don't go flat, then shouldn't you have plenty of time to take a real picture?

Perhaps digital image manipulation is getting out of hand. Maybe we need laws about truth in advertising for all items we buy. I mean, the FTC's laws concerning "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" seems to be ignored by most advertisers who use Photoshop to make their products look better.