I wrote a piece about this and other technologies recently at http://www.portigal.com/blog/manipulating-social-realities-with-technology/

Heaven forbid anyone actually slim down. HP weightloss process to the rescue.

Respectfully,

I don’t see a problem with it. For… who knows how long Models and celebrities have been blessed with an array of photographers and photo editors dedicated to making them look more beautiful and more fit then the rest of us. And all we could do was complain and say, “that’s not fair” (When secretly we wish we could just touch up our photos a bit too.) So, now with standard photo editing programs that any 6 year old can use, and slimming featured cameras, we’ve been given a little help. I can’t wait look thinner!

The funny thing is: I watched V for Vendetta yesterday and started to think the same when the cops rush over some civilians.. 2 hours later it looks like they shot an evil terrorist, and they have images to prove so…

this leave us some doubts about “facts” in the news today,.. at least some doubts… when not sure that is all bullshit

and I watched first time yesterday hehehe… I was amazed by the conviction of V and the strange thing about it is the fact that V reminds me of extremists…. and I always wanted to know what they really says in television, despites of the NBC or CNN translaction.. and all this should make us think two basic things: 1) how much power do the media have? 2) how can we turn the table?

the film also shows us that the people have power to know the truth

but, that’s out of topic here, right? I think that this kind of equipament is good… is good for people who like to see their body in a good shape, is good for people who like to show up… and disregard of the capability of the camera itself, we will never be free of the capability of the photographer, or director, or designer. So, fighting against this kind of technologies, for me, is just an empty fight.

The power of an image - what a great and terrible force to work with and attempt to control…

I’m struck again and again in this discussion and the other recent conversations about true/false realities within images that it’s all so much indication of how much desire we have for photography to contain reality on one level, and yet how much equal desire we have for photography to be able to contain a “better than reality” or “truer to felt reality” version of what’s been captured.

The HP Slimmatic (trademark pending!) feature curiously reminds me of a favorite section of Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallce - in a narrowly future version of our current world, Wallace conjectures for about three paragraphs on what the short history of having an operational video phone might look like. Here’s a rough memory of his history, in Berk-shorthand, as a quick rundown of what I always found to be an entirely plausible lifespan for the video phone:

1. The video phone debuts to great enthusiasm in the marketplace and is quickly adopted by much of its mass audience.

2. Firmly ensconced in homes, people begin to thrill at the ability to have a face-to-face conversation with one another at great distances again. Non-verbal communication enjoys a huge resurgence via the technology.

3. As the “new product smell” feeling rubs off of the video phone, a curious thing happens: people start to feel really self-conscious about what they look like on the videophone, so it becomes semi-normal practice to start “dressing” for the phone - quickly throwing on a good shirt and tie, a dress, a nicer whatever to look “presentable” again…

4. The time involved in “dressing” before answering the phone starts to become cumbersome and some inventive market capitalists manufacture little half-outfits that people can sit behind when they’re on the video phone so it looks like they’re well dressed even when they’re only wearing a smile and flip-flops behind the scenes!

5. People now start to focus even on the non-verbal aspects of what they look like - they start to yearn for the days when they could simply sit on the phone and pick at their fingernails, jot down notes and doodles, and basically stare off into space. Everybody starts to realize how tiring it is to wear a public face all the time, and another group of market capitalists come to the rescue: the Video Phone Face is born - a mask-like object that you set in front of the screen that looks exactly like you, but happier and far more chipper all the time. These sell like hotcakes for a while…

6. Discerning video phone users finally break down and start paying for the old style, audio-only phone models because they’re sick of the whole racket altogether. These market leaders tip public sentiment entirely, and something like 90% of the end users that originally bought the video phones pay twice as much as the price of a video phone to buy back the audio only models.

7. The whole system ends up basically where it started and lots of folks with pockets full of video-phone / video-outfit / video-mask money make a run for whatever border they chose.

Should we simply start investing in the “Save Face” filter within Adobe Photoshop RealWorldsuite? Will we ever have to suffer the embarassment of a moment “caught on film” again if we just edit it away in the technology?

Will my cell phone start to clean up my stutters and verbal fumbles? Will I tolerate any little gaps of silence and awkwardness in conversation anymore?

It’s incredible how much it all makes me relish even more the awkward, unconventional, less-than-polished, rough around the edges humanity that’s hanging our around the edges of all of this digital centrism. Here’s to continuing to believe our eyes and our eyes alone, minus filters, lenses, or any other sort of “corrective” see-through devices…

I tell you what this is alot easier than losing weight the correct way: eat less and exercise. HP chose a good demographic to go after though. Overwieght people are not a niche market. About 50% of Americans are overweight. I’m not to sure if this would be very big out of this country. Other countries I’ve been to everyone is skinny.

I can see the HP ad “Lose weight with out doing anything…really”

As someone who has retouched photos to pay the bills for more than a few years now, I can tell you all how commonplace image “glorification” already is. It’s no great secret that for as long as people have stood in front of the camera, they have wanted to look their best. And the means by which we acheive this are many.

And, whether it is the photographer choosing the right angle and lighting, or “fixing it in post” by retouching, it’s what sets professional work apart from amateur work.

The fact of photo retouching as an artistic technique is not terrible at all. It’s what the advertising, film, graphic design, and photography industries demand, and what audiences and consumers expect. They give out oscars to people who practice this craft, after all.

That aside, what HP is selling is essentially a two-bit Photoshop trick for people who don’t know Photoshop. It looked to me like either a simple stretch, or a “punk and bloat” filter.

Of course, this digital trickery doesn’t guarantee flattering photography for the lay user.

By the way, for those of you who want to see what a seismic difference lighting and in-camera effects make on the attractiveness of a subject, pick up any photography fundamentals text book.

John Hedgecoe’s books are very good, and they show sometimes startling examples of incorrect lighting can make otherwise attractive subjects look strange, unreal, or even ugly. With relatively little trouble, you can even shoot a subject in the daytime, and make it look like the photo was taken at night.

Photography isn’t a black-box, what-you-see-is-what-you-get situation. Photography, at the end of the day, is a representation. It’s definitely an art form, and not an exactly representational science.

Thanks, Adrian, for the follow-up, and for sparking more controversy. I enjoy a good old-fashioned, friendly argument.

Speaking of how lighting can really affect how a person looks, there was quite a row awhile back regarding a NY Times Magazine cover of Virginia’s former governor Mark Warner. The cover made him look downright creepy. He looks like a bad, used-car salesman.

Here’s his official governor’s portrait.

Quite a difference.

The Times ended up printing a correction, stating that the photograph had “inadvertentedly” altered the appearance of his clothing and skin tone.

This reminds me of the silent movie concept. You could be cussing someone out with a smile on your face, but in silent black and white it looks adorable to the audience! ;)