The art of before-and-after pictures

DeadJohn · 03-03-2015, 07:48 AM

The video accompanying the article shows the magic that can be done with lighting, posture, and makeup. BBC News - The art of before-and-after pictures

mrNewt · 03-03-2015, 08:03 AM

Never trust photographers... just saying

tvdtvdtvd · 03-03-2015, 08:20 AM - **2 Likes**

Precisely. All this nonsense about truth in photography and the responsibility of photojournalism, particularly
as brought to the fore last week, is rubbish.

The camera is a tool for interpreting the world, but it is not reality. As soon as you've decided on a focal length,
you've 'distorted' reality....

Those before and after images are one of the greatest examples of photography slight of hand. They're intended
to illustrate how much the public is fooled by the after image, but the 'before' shots are just as contrived and
manipulated.

I'l share the best advice I ever received: "Question Everything.".

hcc · 03-03-2015, 08:33 AM

I would agree with tvdtvdtvd. These photographs are one of the greatest examples of photography scam.

A few years ago, I was involved in a scientific forensic investigation of a natural disaster. Before and after shots constituted (and still constitute) a major set of information. (I stress the word scientific here.) It is far from trivial, in particular as soon as you need to retrieve quantitative informations from the image comparison. These before and after images are also critical to learn from experience, as well as to educate newer generations.

My 5 cents, to share my disgust with some form of image manipulation which is deceiving....

**blackcloudbrew** · 03-03-2015, 08:35 AM

I've long suspected this sort of thing for these kind of shots selling weight loss. OTOH, I've just gone through 5 months of a focused weight loss program and have actually lost 65 lbs. Haven't done my after shot yet but neither my starting image nor my finishing image will look anything like those in the article.

mrNewt · 03-03-2015, 08:37 AM

Don't get me started on those beauty products...

DeadJohn · 03-03-2015, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

...All this nonsense about truth in photography and the responsibility of photojournalism...

There are different expectations for different types of photography. Art photography can do just about whatever it wants. Advertising photography can be manipulated but should comply with trade regulations; it's a given that ads lie. Photojournalism should try to present facts without distortion and without lies of omission.

BrianR · 03-03-2015, 08:58 AM

Photography is a creative lie.

A similar clip from "Bigger, Faster, Stronger":

How Before and After Bodybuilding Photos are Often Faked

Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd

They're intended to illustrate how much the public is fooled by the after image, but the 'before' shots are just as contrived and manipulated.

The goal is to show the public the largest change possible, the Before is always a lie in the downtrodden direction and the After is a lie in the awesome direction.

Macario · 03-03-2015, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

There are different expectations for different types of photography. Art photography can do just about whatever it wants. Advertising photography can be manipulated but should comply with trade regulations; it's a given that ads lie. Photojournalism should try to present facts without distortion and without lies of omission.

Well the problem with photojournalism is, as soon as you compose and press the shutter, you are already manipulating. As you decide what the photograph and what to leave out. So there is no real truth, even in photohournalism.

ChristianRock · 03-03-2015, 10:16 AM

What irks me even more is those ads for "portrait software", where they completely distort the supposedly "original" non-edited picture, to make it look dreadful.

VisualDarkness · 03-03-2015, 11:11 AM

I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted.

mrNewt · 03-03-2015, 11:19 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted.

Good scams are always based on truths half told... that is what this is... a scam designed to fool people and nothing more.

BrianR · 03-03-2015, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed.

They're presenting 'before' and 'after' photos to make the viewer believe some magical transformation happened from using some exercise regime/supplement/product. That's a 'fake' to me.

mikeSF · 03-03-2015, 12:05 PM

Why be you when you can be NEW?

-Robots

Macario · 03-03-2015, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

They're presenting 'before' and 'after' photos to make the viewer believe some magical transformation happened from using some exercise regime/supplement/product. That's a 'fake' to me.

Actually they did not. If they would have just dressed them in clothes that makes the best of their figures it probably would have been fine for you (ask yourself this question, if two women walk down the street who will you look at, the one dressed plane, or the one with make-up etc). But now they extra with posture and light and take a picture and it is not fine because it is "fake". Well it is not fake, They are still the same person, they are just being uplifted for the photo.
Why do you think some poses do work in portret photography and others not, because they are better suited. Is it then fake if someone "looks"better because they use a better posture?

---------- Post added 03-03-15 at 01:39 PM ----------

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted.

because if you do not know the whole context, you might draw a totally wrong conclusion.

03-03-2015, 07:48 AM	#1
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834	The art of before-and-after pictures The video accompanying the article shows the magic that can be done with lighting, posture, and makeup. BBC News - The art of before-and-after pictures

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Before and After	agsy	Photo Critique	20	04-06-2014 06:18 AM
Before and After Photoshop	interested_observer	Photographic Technique	5	01-14-2014 06:41 AM
Landscape Before and After	slowpez	Photo Critique	24	03-18-2013 10:34 AM
Nature The wrath of Irene--before and after.	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	3	09-04-2011 04:29 AM
The Power of Raw (Before and After)	Alex00	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	02-10-2010 06:43 PM

03-03-2015, 08:03 AM	#2
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Never trust photographers... just saying

03-03-2015, 08:20 AM - 2 Likes	#3
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	Precisely. All this nonsense about truth in photography and the responsibility of photojournalism, particularly as brought to the fore last week, is rubbish. The camera is a tool for interpreting the world, but it is not reality. As soon as you've decided on a focal length, you've 'distorted' reality.... Those before and after images are one of the greatest examples of photography slight of hand. They're intended to illustrate how much the public is fooled by the after image, but the 'before' shots are just as contrived and manipulated. I'l share the best advice I ever received: "Question Everything.".

03-03-2015, 08:33 AM	#4
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,002	I would agree with tvdtvdtvd. These photographs are one of the greatest examples of photography scam. A few years ago, I was involved in a scientific forensic investigation of a natural disaster. Before and after shots constituted (and still constitute) a major set of information. (I stress the word scientific here.) It is far from trivial, in particular as soon as you need to retrieve quantitative informations from the image comparison. These before and after images are also critical to learn from experience, as well as to educate newer generations. My 5 cents, to share my disgust with some form of image manipulation which is deceiving....

03-03-2015, 08:35 AM	#5
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	I've long suspected this sort of thing for these kind of shots selling weight loss. OTOH, I've just gone through 5 months of a focused weight loss program and have actually lost 65 lbs. Haven't done my after shot yet but neither my starting image nor my finishing image will look anything like those in the article.

03-03-2015, 08:37 AM	#6
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Don't get me started on those beauty products...

03-03-2015, 08:57 AM	#7
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,834 Original Poster	Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd ...All this nonsense about truth in photography and the responsibility of photojournalism... There are different expectations for different types of photography. Art photography can do just about whatever it wants. Advertising photography can be manipulated but should comply with trade regulations; it's a given that ads lie. Photojournalism should try to present facts without distortion and without lies of omission.

03-03-2015, 08:58 AM	#8
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Photography is a creative lie. A similar clip from "Bigger, Faster, Stronger": How Before and After Bodybuilding Photos are Often Faked Originally posted by tvdtvdtvd They're intended to illustrate how much the public is fooled by the after image, but the 'before' shots are just as contrived and manipulated. The goal is to show the public the largest change possible, the Before is always a lie in the downtrodden direction and the After is a lie in the awesome direction.

03-03-2015, 09:08 AM	#9
Macario Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hoek van Holland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,393	Originally posted by DeadJohn There are different expectations for different types of photography. Art photography can do just about whatever it wants. Advertising photography can be manipulated but should comply with trade regulations; it's a given that ads lie. Photojournalism should try to present facts without distortion and without lies of omission. Well the problem with photojournalism is, as soon as you compose and press the shutter, you are already manipulating. As you decide what the photograph and what to leave out. So there is no real truth, even in photohournalism.

03-03-2015, 10:16 AM	#10
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	What irks me even more is those ads for "portrait software", where they completely distort the supposedly "original" non-edited picture, to make it look dreadful.

03-03-2015, 11:11 AM	#11
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted.

03-03-2015, 11:19 AM - 1 Like	#12
mrNewt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: ON, RH Posts: 2,181	Originally posted by VisualDarkness I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted. Good scams are always based on truths half told... that is what this is... a scam designed to fool people and nothing more.

03-03-2015, 11:23 AM	#13
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by VisualDarkness I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. They're presenting 'before' and 'after' photos to make the viewer believe some magical transformation happened from using some exercise regime/supplement/product. That's a 'fake' to me.

03-03-2015, 12:05 PM	#14
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	Why be you when you can be NEW? -Robots

03-03-2015, 01:37 PM	#15
Macario Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Hoek van Holland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,393	Originally posted by BrianR They're presenting 'before' and 'after' photos to make the viewer believe some magical transformation happened from using some exercise regime/supplement/product. That's a 'fake' to me. Actually they did not. If they would have just dressed them in clothes that makes the best of their figures it probably would have been fine for you (ask yourself this question, if two women walk down the street who will you look at, the one dressed plane, or the one with make-up etc). But now they extra with posture and light and take a picture and it is not fine because it is "fake". Well it is not fake, They are still the same person, they are just being uplifted for the photo. Why do you think some poses do work in portret photography and others not, because they are better suited. Is it then fake if someone "looks"better because they use a better posture? ---------- Post added 03-03-15 at 01:39 PM ---------- Originally posted by VisualDarkness I can't see why they are calling them "fake", because they are telling the truth of exactly the moment and the setting when the shutter was pushed. It's a truth but maybe not the truth compared to how they are interpreted. because if you do not know the whole context, you might draw a totally wrong conclusion.