Pixel Perfect

I thought this article was extremely interesting. It made me really, for the first time, realize how often pictures that we looked at are altered. I think that often we hear about images being altered in a negative way, but this article pointed out some of the other reasons and justifications for altering pictures. For example, when he talks about how one image was altered because the sky looked too polluted or because a girl looked unhealthy, or to add more clothes to a badly dressed celeb. It just seemed so amazing the amount of things he seemed to achieve with all the different tools they were describing. I also thought that it was interesting to hear about his history and how that shaped what he was doing with images. Simply the idea that someone looked "too small" or "teeny" and that he wanted to change that gives me a different idea about altering such images. Overall I found the article enlightening and a wonderful description and example of how image altering can happen or function.

Pixel Perfect

Very interesting article. I think it is amazing how he can look at a picture, foresee what changes he wants to make, and make those changes using software so well. He really seems to be on the frontier in this field of art.
Also, the story line and description built into the article really give a personal feel to Dangin's character.

Flickr Commons

Another resource for photos!

http://flickr.com/commons

Pascal Dangin article

I like how he incorporates other fields of study into his works and considers them a foundation--computer science, art history, anatomy are all important and definitely give substance to his works. I liked his requirements for hiring—the quiz and anatomy/life drawing classes—because that sets a good standard for quality work in his field of work.

I also like how he embraces his work as an art form, not just a mechanical process. He is also very mindful of his client’s intent, which is interesting because usually the focus is on the artist’s own intent on their works. I agree about his stance on having content/purpose behind action, although sometimes the best things come from just pure experimentation. Overall, this was a really fun and interesting insight into a career profile of Pascal Dangin and the growing field of digital photography.

Dangin

Dangin seems to me, to be more an artist than just someone who retouches photos. I always thought of retouching to be a more manufactured, cookie-cutter process, with shoppers simply lopping off wrinkles and blemishes left and right: in comes inherently flawed picture of human being, out goes unrealistic ideal of beauty to which reality can never measure up.
In many cases that’s not far from the truth, and that possibly is part of what makes Dangin’s work so great. For example, in one instance Dangin points out the crookedness in one model’s teeth, yet choses to leave them unaltered. Dangin states: “I don’t want her to become someone else”. I found this piece of commentary to be refreshing considering the context.
The article also delves a bit into the social and ethical issues that go with altering photographs, which I feel is necessary. It mentions Andy Roddick and Kate Winslet voicing their discontent over changes they felt were too drastic. Dangin remains relatively unconcerned with celebs gripes and rather points out the irony in their requests: ““The people who complain about retouching are the first to say, ‘Get this thing off my arm’”. After reading the article, I can’t help but want to see some of his work, though the fact of the matter is I probably already have.

Pixel Perfect

I really loved the way that Lauren Collins talks so descriptively about Dangin's persona and physical appearance to give us an idea of the kind of extrodinary artist he is and yet at the same time, an average looking person. The fact that he's not picture perfect himself and recognizes it is refresing- he doesn't seem to be consumed with appearance despite his career. I think that her detailed descriptions of Dangin translated very well into describing how he edits his photos and each and every aspect he perfects in the photos. While everyone knows that the top magazines are edited heavily in photoshop, I never knew that Dangin was responsible for so much of what the public views of celebrities and models.
One of my favorite parts of this article was the section in which Demarchelier and Dangin talk about editing a photo for Vogue and Seven Jeans. The idea that these two men are responsible for molding the ideal ad in such a matter of fact way was funny and surprising. Also, I found it interesting to see where Dangin is coming from in his approach. He restated several times that he feels that makeup, clothing, accessories, etc. are simply a "transformation" to one's self, thus, his work becomes an extension of this transformation to create a flawless appearance. Overall, an interesting and funny read.

Reading 2

Its totally amaizing what can be done with a computer now. I wondered for a long time how this was all done. Its also a bit scary how people can be corrected phisically to create this vision of perfection for fashion photography. ( face, nose, eyes legs, ect.) Its really cool that dangin can do this for a living and that he can have so much say over how to create the perfect image.
I found the article super interesting and helpful. I also feel like it also takes away a bit for me now to know that alot of images are post edited to create this perfect person. His ideas and work are really neat but I can't help to think that what this perfect vision that he is encouraging does not exist and thats a little disappointing

Wow. This article was extremely interesting. I had always known that magazine models were altered in that fashion, however I never realized that professional athletes' figures were 'enhanced' as well. Furthermore, it came as a surprise that the Dove commercials were being altered. I have a very mixed reaction to this article. On one side, I can appreciate Pascal Dangin's work and care to such minute detail. However, his vast distortions of reality, much of which is unknown to teenagers, has transformed what is now considered 'healthy'. I had always felt that the rise in eating disorders have been connected in some sense to magazines such as Vogue for displaying an 'attractive' minority of women. I had also always defended such magazines because their intentions are to sell products, and that these attractive women tend to have a greater influence on the marketability of the product. Now, I am mostly appalled, that the figures of these models are changed to such a great extent. Whereas previously I had thought that very minor touches were being made, now I realize that anything to the roundness of one's face is being changed by artists.

Pixel Perfect

Informative! I always wondered who was behind those Dove advertisements. It's interesting to see a rebuttal (if that's what it is; Dangin just seems content to do what he's doing and to not get into an argument) to the constant foretellings of the downfall of society through warped body image views. Maybe he's right! Maybe we all just need to come to the conclusion that these retouched photos all show an ideal, something that can't necessarily be reached but is pretty cool nonetheless. Maybe if everyone came to this conclusion, we wouldn't have people constantly depressed with the state of their bodies. Oh darn, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? People are silly.

But even so, I agree wholeheartedly with Dangin. It's a pleasure to see that he can continue to do what he's best at regardless of the disparaging comments. It's really an art form in and of itself, considering that the photos go in on one end, and come out completely buffed up on the other, and that photographers cave come to rely on this type of post-processing to produce ideal results. It's also good to know that there is such a thing as balance, and that simply making every face perfect and clean doesn't necessarily produce good work.

But I do disagree with his view that creativity should lead technology. If we waited for creativity to create a demand for the technology we use, we'd never get anywhere. Case in point: Photoshop - dude just wanted to display some grayscale images on his screen, and opportunity came knocking. Who knew that this is what it would lead to?

I too would not wear clothes if Demarchelier were shooting.

Well, I think the average person (most likely female), when they look at these magazinges, does not remind herself that the image before her is not real, that the image has been photoshoped. I think the average consumer very much believes the image is real and is trying all the products marketed to aid her in reaching an unatainable goal. The writer makes this Dagin out to be a visual god and from all that he wrote, this looks to be so. I know this is how the world is these days so what is the point in being upset about it (which I get). This article is very much about the route photography is and has been taking, perhaps the route it has always been on, to romanticize reality. One has to wonder when reality will cease to be real for us as the manipulated images we are bombarded with code over the images we see with our own eyes. What does the role of the photographer become in this world, is she/he just another automaton, why get creative in the shoot or with the instruments involved when it can all be added in later. I dont know, it was a scary and fascinating article.