Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
There’s a thread about Jessica Reyes Padilla that started to address this concept, but then a whole junk drawer of topics got spilled into it and it’s hard to have a clear discussion.
This will be a bit long, but here’s a start.
All photographs undergo some sort of processing, even if it’s from an adjustment algorithm on somebody’s mobile phone. Light levels, color, etc. Photographers and amateurs will also further apply processing to the photos, such as adjusting color saturation. Adjusting contrast is extremely common and typical in fitness and bodybuilding photographs for obvious reasons. Models who take selfies often seek out downward lighting in order to increase contrast effect in their photos. All of these techniques have been used since the invention of photography, originally to accommodate limitations of camera and film. With digital photography, a lot of these adjustments are automatic by software and happen almost instantaneously as the image is captured.
Are photo processing, angles, and lighting techniques manipulations? Yes. All. Everything from a model’s own body, make up, tanning, the lighting, photography technique, and post-processing is a form of manipulation to achieve the greatest aesthetic affect in the photograph. Layer all those techniques correctly and you get awesome photography and videography that folks like Trè know how to do.
Because of the above, it’s a bit disingenuous to point fingers at anyone who “manipulates“ photographs in this manner, since virtually all of them are manipulated in such a way.
Now let’s talk about “Morphs”. To me, a photograph becomes a morph when the actual shape or proportion of the subject is modified. This means enlarging or shrinking aspects of the subject’s body during post processing. There are some amazing morphs out there. There will probably be greater numbers as artificial intelligence learns how to make such changes in a convincing way. Until recently, changing the size and proportion of human subjects has been difficult and time-consuming and required human skill. Now, reducing the head size is a common filter available on the mobile phone.
To bring this in line with OP‘s choice of topic: OP is generating a morph of a morph. The result is a best guess of what the original subject might have looked like before she chose to apply a morph to her head and face, which changed the proportion of her physique to create the impression that the body has overall thicker and heavier muscular development. I personally believe this goes well beyond the purpose of this site, and approaches the zone of AI-created images. The result is a representation of a person that has been run through complicated software two times to create a convincing human-like image. With all the available photos out there, literally, hundreds of thousand every day, why do we need to do this?
Bottom line: photographs have been manipulated since camera and film were invented. Morphs are a kind of manipulation, but not all manipulations are morphs. Morphs typically exceed the boundaries of what is physically possible and achievable by the subject of the photograph. (And, whole separate topic: since people see images of bodybuilders and aspire to achieve such a physique, such false representations are often perceived as a form of cheating, that is, making others believe something is physically achievable that actually isn’t, it is actually a result of a morph). Therefore, morphs go beyond traditional photographic manipulation and enter the territory of gross misrepresentation. There are whole sites, such as deviant art, that offer fantasy images of fictional subjects. In my opinion, this site is not that.
There’s a thread about Jessica Reyes Padilla that started to address this concept, but then a whole junk drawer of topics got spilled into it and it’s hard to have a clear discussion.
This will be a bit long, but here’s a start.
All photographs undergo some sort of processing...
asianfitnessfan, 95% of your reply was off topic, and your final point missed the mark. You talked about "misrepresentation". It was already misrepresented. The topic is of restoration. Restoration is a common and accepted practice in the world of art. Art conservation.
See: "Before and After Conservation Treatment" https://americanart.si.edu/art/conservation/b...
Everyone, please stay on topic.
I would say no. You don’t have access to a raw file. Just a downloaded image of an already processed and transcoded (for upload) file that’s already been crunched to get onto the platform. You might call it a restoration but in the end even if you’re staring at a photo of her face you’re doing a best guesstimate of their true look and proportions.
Not you specifically but I don’t understand this pushback against face shrinking and morphs. You sign up for GWM, there are upload rules and guidelines that are mostly pretty easy to conform to, and then a forum where you can (mostly) fill in the blanks, which includes morphs and stage images. If you’re seriously considering spending your time to “restore” photos to “original state” that’s fine, but know they’ll likely be spotted and reported by someone. That face still looks uncanny valley and there clearly shenanigans going on
I would say no. You don’t have access to a raw file. Just a downloaded image of an already processed and transcoded (for upload) file that’s already been crunched to get onto the platform. You might call it a restoration but in the end even if you’re staring at a photo of her face you’re doing a best guesstimate of their true look and proportions.
Not you specifically but I don’t understand this pushback against face shrinking and morphs. You sign up for GWM, there are upload rules and guidelines that are mostly pretty easy to conform to, and then a forum where you can (mostly) fill in the blanks, which includes morphs and stage images. If you’re seriously considering spending your time to “restore” photos to “original state” that’s fine, but know they’ll likely be spotted and reported by someone. That face still looks uncanny valley and there clearly shenanigans going on
Lol
Not looking to try tackling such a herculane project as restoring the shrunken heads of GWM. I did one for amusement. I agree about the uncanny valley on the one I did. It's maybe just less so uncanny than the source image.
Also have zero interest inviolating GWM policies. I followed them, I was explicit that I followed them, and I will always aim to follow them. If anything, I typically err on the side of caution.
I agree with your entire take. It struck me as an interesting thing to ask.
Given some of the other Chainer/Mod input I've seen in other forum threads regarding how to handle various "morph" situations, throwing this in may help further clarify some of the thinking on it.
Personally, despite being a hobbiest "morpher", I take a very strict view of disallowing "morphs" in the main gallery.
Thanks for the reply.
asianfitnessfan, 95% of your reply was off topic, and your final point missed the mark. You talked about "misrepresentation". It was already misrepresented. The topic is of restoration. Restoration is a common and accepted practice in the world of art. Art conservation.
See: "Before and After Conservation Treatment" https://americanart.si.edu/art/conservation/b...
Everyone, please stay on topic.
What? Take a second to think about what has happened here.
First, the subject of the original image posts a morphed version on her personal social media account. Whatever the original image looked like is known only to her. Afterwards, OP comes along and performs more morphing.
Then what? Not a restoration of anything. The result is OP’s best guess of what the original subject might have looked like before she chose to apply a morph to her head and face. Whatever that guess, it is now twice removed from the original unmorphed image (which is known only to the original poster).
You should read your own link. Restoration in the art world compensates for and attempts to correct the degrading effects of time, damage, vandalism, or other external forces that detract from the original intended condition and appearance of a given piece of art. This is definitely not that. In this case, there was no significant passage of time, vandalism, or damage from outside forces. The original changes to the image in shape and form were applied by the image owner intentionally.
OP is not performing restoration at all. OP is generating a morph of a morph (quite skillfully, I might add).
Hm ok I think I misread portions of your post then. Definitely an interesting question but also a whole fan of worms. I am sure there se people that would love the challenge of trying to figure this out per photo.
I think generally the subtle stuff should be removed. That’s my opinion anyway. I’m not going 200% on every post and I don’t think we should be expected to unless it’s blatantly obvious but also posters should be aware that if something isn’t right it might get bonked.
What? Take a second to think about what has happened here.
First, the subject of the original image posts a morphed version on her personal social media account. Whatever the original image looked like is known only to her. Afterwards, OP comes along and performs more morphing.
Then what? Not a restoration of anything. The result is OP’s best guess of what the original subject might have looked like before she chose to apply a morph to her head and face. Whatever that guess, it is now twice removed from the original unmorphed image (which is known only to the original poster).
SNIPPED FOR LENGTH
You said "attempts to correct". Key word being "attempts". Using the criteria you agreed with from the article, "morphing" is equivalent to "vandalism". The way you wrote both replies suggested you didn't appear to think I was familiar with photography practices or with art restoration. While I don't claim expertise in either, nothing you nor the article said were news to me. Just rehashes of things I already knew... effectively, little more than stating the obvious from my perspective.
We actually don't know who owns the original photo. It was taken by a professional photographer. More often than not, photos of that caliber are owned by the photographer, not by the model. The photographer may license or sell the photo to the model, but regardless of ownership, the original photo in RAW format direct from the camera is the source. Prior to any editing by the photographer, and prior to any additional changes made by the model herself, it's the RAW photo, not the model's changes that is the original.
Photographer edits are normalized. All the stuff you talked about in your 1st reply regarding angles and lighting etc are not alterations. By that metric, an amateur with a Polaroid camera has "altered" their 2nd photo from their first because the sun moved or their hands weren't steady. All the photographer edits you mentioned in your 1st post except for enhancements to the physique are normalized. Physique enhancements even by the photographer themselves, and no matter how subtle are still "morphs".
Art restoration performs as much research, analysis, examination, and testing prior to making the smallest change. I could have reviewed all her videos, taken key screenshots, and overlaid them to get exacting measurements of her head proportions relative to her body, and facial features relative to her morph to see if her facial features had been altered. I could then have used all that to painstakingly "restore" her to the normalized photographer's edit.
I didn't go that far. I was doing it for fun.
I didn't attempt to identify or restore any facial feature "morphs", only head size. If anything, I added more facial distortions while taking shortcuts.
You're correct that I approximated her actual head size. But none of those considerations detract from it being a restoration. Art restorers, no matter how meticulous, may or may not have ever seen the original artwork, may or may not have reference photos, and ultimately must use their own artistry to perform their restoration as faithfully as possible... emphasis on "as possible". My restoration wasn't meticulous, but it was faithful.
OP is not performing restoration at all. OP is generating a morph of a morph (quite skillfully, I might add).
Thank you.
That image however was a "quicky" and utilized a fraction of my skills developed after over 30 years of hobbiest "morphing". I didn't use Photoshop. I didn't use The GIMP. Heck, I didn't even use my computer. I did it on my smartphone phone in about 30 minutes using 3 separate phone apps. I took lazy shortcuts in creating it, and it has some really blatent errors like her hair contours.
I didn't read all the posts in this thread but my short reply would be that you're welcome to have an Image Themes thread in the forum of these. Ideally have before/after comparisons.
Chainer, I actually did all of that the day before creating this post, before and after posted to the Fantasy image theme section of the forum. Then I mentioned it and linked to it in my first post here:
I posted it to the fantasy forum per site policy on morphs here:
Nope! No head shrinking here! https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...
I just thought of what might be an odd question about site policy:
Morphed images aren't allowed to be uploaded to the main gallery per GWM upload policy.
Recently I came across a blatant head shrink "morph" of Song Da Eun. I decided to have some fun by "unmorphing" the image to restore her head to normal size... technically, a "morph" of a "morph". I posted it to the fantasy forum per site policy on morphs here:
Nope! No head shrinking here! https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...
Because the final result of the "unmorph" restored the image to look plausibly real, I included a notice that it was still a "morph" and shouldn't be uploaded to the main gallery per GWM upload policy.
After sleeping on it, I couldn't help thinking that with all the subtle morphs already permitted in the gallery because of "normalization" of enhancements done by photographers and models, why not ask:
Although it's a "morph" of a "morph", it's an "unmorph" to restore her head size to more anatomically accurate proportions. With the normalization of preexisting exceptions already permitted, would the below image be considered by Chainer and the Mods as eligible as a main gallery upload?
I realize I'm asking what might be considered a "slippery slope" question, but I decided to ask and see what the admins thought.