Before/ after advertisments

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JohnH, May 23, 2006.

  1. JohnH

    JohnH Guest

    JohnH, May 23, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnH

    frederick Guest

    JohnH wrote:
    > How can you tell how valid this type of comparison is?
    > http://www.fotofacialrf.com/before_afters.html
    > John
    >
    >

    After a quick look at those photos, it looks to me like the "after"
    shots are less well in focus, and with a difference in contrast/colour
    balance/saturation that could make them look a bit better than they
    might have otherwise looked - if they were taken under identical
    conditions to the "before" shots.
    Look at the colours of the iris of the eyes and the lips - I expect that
    if the colour balance / levels of the "after" shots was adjusted so that
    these features matched the "before" shots, then the improvement after
    treatment would appear to be less dramatic. It would be reasonably
    simple to do that.
    Deliberate deception? - perhaps not - it would be simple to use makeup
    and/or post-processing the images to achieve that. Most likely several
    shots were taken, and the samples shown were chosen because they "showed
    the improvement best", without anticipating scrutiny such as yours.
    frederick, May 23, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JohnH

    Paul Heslop Guest

    JohnH wrote:
    >
    > How can you tell how valid this type of comparison is?
    > http://www.fotofacialrf.com/before_afters.html
    > John


    Nowadays? probably almost impossible, except when they do that magic
    morphing thing on shopping channels, the ones where they have the big
    fat woman from neck down suddenly turn into a slender and toned woman,
    and obviously a different one, which is one of the reasons you don't
    see her head :O)

    --
    Paul (Wake up the dawn and ask her why)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, May 23, 2006
    #3
  4. frederick <> writes:

    > JohnH wrote:
    >> How can you tell how valid this type of comparison is?
    >> http://www.fotofacialrf.com/before_afters.html
    >> John

    > After a quick look at those photos, it looks to me like the "after"
    > shots are less well in focus, and with a difference in contrast/colour
    > balance/saturation that could make them look a bit better than they
    > might have otherwise looked - if they were taken under identical
    > conditions to the "before" shots.
    > Look at the colours of the iris of the eyes and the lips - I expect
    > that if the colour balance / levels of the "after" shots was adjusted
    > so that these features matched the "before" shots, then the
    > improvement after treatment would appear to be less dramatic. It
    > would be reasonably simple to do that.
    > Deliberate deception? - perhaps not - it would be simple to use makeup
    > and/or post-processing the images to achieve that. Most likely
    > several shots were taken, and the samples shown were chosen because
    > they "showed the improvement best", without anticipating scrutiny such
    > as yours.


    Those are at least different photos. I've seen ads for things like
    hair-loss treatment where the "before" and "after" images were
    obviously exactly the same, either or both simply photoshopped a
    little.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, May 23, 2006
    #4
  5. JohnH

    Paul Heslop Guest

    Måns Rullgård wrote:
    >
    > frederick <> writes:
    >
    > > JohnH wrote:
    > >> How can you tell how valid this type of comparison is?
    > >> http://www.fotofacialrf.com/before_afters.html
    > >> John

    > > After a quick look at those photos, it looks to me like the "after"
    > > shots are less well in focus, and with a difference in contrast/colour
    > > balance/saturation that could make them look a bit better than they
    > > might have otherwise looked - if they were taken under identical
    > > conditions to the "before" shots.
    > > Look at the colours of the iris of the eyes and the lips - I expect
    > > that if the colour balance / levels of the "after" shots was adjusted
    > > so that these features matched the "before" shots, then the
    > > improvement after treatment would appear to be less dramatic. It
    > > would be reasonably simple to do that.
    > > Deliberate deception? - perhaps not - it would be simple to use makeup
    > > and/or post-processing the images to achieve that. Most likely
    > > several shots were taken, and the samples shown were chosen because
    > > they "showed the improvement best", without anticipating scrutiny such
    > > as yours.

    >
    > Those are at least different photos. I've seen ads for things like
    > hair-loss treatment where the "before" and "after" images were
    > obviously exactly the same, either or both simply photoshopped a
    > little.
    >
    > --
    > Måns Rullgård
    >


    Reminding me of those teeth whiteners where it is obvious they have
    dulled the image before the treatment, if not downright painted the
    'bad' teeth yellow or grey.

    --
    Paul (Wake up the dawn and ask her why)
    ------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, May 24, 2006
    #5
  6. JohnH

    J. Clarke Guest

    JohnH wrote:

    > How can you tell how valid this type of comparison is?
    > http://www.fotofacialrf.com/before_afters.html


    Well, any portrait photographer who made a living off of shooting school
    classes is used to cleaning up worse than that. I suspect that they have
    things a lot easier with Photoshop than they did when they had to do it in
    the darkroom.

    > John


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, May 24, 2006
    #6
  7. JohnH

    MB Guest

    I have a hazel and a blue eye-- from the beginning. For my high school
    portrait (a thousand years ago), the photographer refused to print the photo
    "as is" but retouched to make both eyes the same: he said he didn't want
    anyone to think he'd made a mistake-- however that would have been possible
    I don't know. Needless to say, it was pre-digital, although not pre-color
    film, times.
    MB, May 24, 2006
    #7
  8. JohnH

    J. Clarke Guest

    MB wrote:

    > I have a hazel and a blue eye-- from the beginning. For my high school
    > portrait (a thousand years ago), the photographer refused to print the
    > photo "as is" but retouched to make both eyes the same: he said he didn't
    > want anyone to think he'd made a mistake-- however that would have been
    > possible
    > I don't know. Needless to say, it was pre-digital, although not pre-color
    > film, times.


    I think that's taking things a bit far. Cleaning up zits is one thing,
    changing eye color is another.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, May 24, 2006
    #8
  9. On Wed, 24 May 2006 10:43:49 +0200 in rec.photo.digital, "MB"
    <> wrote:

    > For my high school
    > portrait (a thousand years ago), the photographer refused to print the photo
    > "as is" but retouched to make both eyes the same: he said he didn't want
    > anyone to think he'd made a mistake-- however that would have been possible
    > I don't know. Needless to say, it was pre-digital, although not pre-color
    > film, times.


    I would have refused to pay him and gone to another photographer.
    Dennis P. Harris, May 26, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lord Turkey Cough

    Site advertisments using all my CPU.

    Lord Turkey Cough, Dec 14, 2007, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,225
    John Thompson
    Dec 17, 2007
  2. Lord Turkey Cough

    Site advertisments using all my CPU.

    Lord Turkey Cough, Dec 14, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    714
    Dan C
    Dec 15, 2007
  3. Uncle Grumpy

    Re: Site advertisments using all my CPU.

    Uncle Grumpy, Dec 14, 2007, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    375
    Uncle Grumpy
    Dec 14, 2007
  4. Uncle Grumpy

    Re: Site advertisments using all my CPU.

    Uncle Grumpy, Dec 14, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    438
    Uncle Grumpy
    Dec 14, 2007
  5. Lord Turkey Cough

    Re: Site advertisments using all my CPU.

    Lord Turkey Cough, Dec 14, 2007, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Lord Turkey Cough
    Dec 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page