Photographer photoshopped my teen update page 4

[Tiaramisu]

I'm from the Boston area. Even the teens and 20 somethings would find those clothes offensive around here.

 

[Magic Mom]

I do a lot of senior photography, and I'm guessing the corrections had more to do with the photographer's critique of his own work than his idea of how thin the OP's daughter did or didn't look. I can pose a girl in a way that is more flattering to her body style or I can pose in a way that makes a thin waist look thick, arms bulge and extra chins to appear. Sometimes I get an image that is gorgeous except for the fact that I didn't pay attention to the pose or she didn't take posing direction well. I will make some very subtle adjustments to make up for what I failed to do with posing.

 

[DSLRuser]

Why? That's there target market! Dd13 and dd14 love PIMK, dd19 is getting a little old for it. Once girls feel they are too old for Justice, they want PINK. I think anyone over the age of 21 would look ridiculous in those clothes. Who wants to wear hoodies and sweats with bright glitter writing.

It is not the target market. College kids is the target. Per the articles I have seen.

It prolly has a lot of me being dad and not wanting my baby to grow up. I admit that.

 

[DSLRuser]

Have you considered upping your cost, then removing your copyright and XML data? Call it a "digital release" fee or whatever?

Yes. But honestly, my business is not mature enough yet for me to be there.

 

[pocomom]

So it turns out about 5 or 6 of the girls were photoshopped to "enhance" their figures (and one face) by an assistant. The photos were not supposed to be sent to us however. He said he was "practicing" but somehow we got the "practice" photos. Rumors range from he was going to use the pics for his own portfolio (despite actually not taking them) to he was making the girls more to his own liking for personal use (ew)
The main photographer from what I hear was very upset . The coach was livid, and the school has immediately stopped using them.

 

[piglet too]

Glad to hear that everyone is taking this seriously. Do you know if it was reported to the police to make sure the assistant didn't have any scary intentions?

 

[pocomom]

Glad to hear that everyone is taking this seriously. Do you know if it was reported to the police to make sure the assistant didn't have any scary intentions?

I'm not sure at this point, and I'm not sure if it is a police matter, unless they can prove he was using the photos in some way not appropriate. I think it would be hard to get any action on something like this without proof of his intentions. I think the main photographer could probably sue if the assistant was passing them off as his own, but I don't know with the edits done maybe not?

 

[gwynne]

I'm not sure at this point, and I'm not sure if it is a police matter, unless they can prove he was using the photos in some way not appropriate. I think it would be hard to get any action on something like this without proof of his intentions. I think the main photographer could probably sue if the assistant was passing them off as his own, but I don't know with the edits done maybe not?

I think it might be hard to prove intent. All the parents are so fortunate that the assistant wasn't a detail person and sent along the wrong pictures. Maybe the main photographer will have a look at what his shop is sending out under his name from now on.
I am glad you were able to work with the other parents and figure out what had happened.

 

[elphaba91]

It seems that even Ronda Rowsey is not immune to the dreaded Photoshop! https://instagram.com/p/BB9LOYdBEVq/

 

[DisneyOma]

Glad to hear that everyone is taking this seriously. Do you know if it was reported to the police to make sure the assistant didn't have any scary intentions?

"Scary Intentions"? Were they naked shots? If not, there's nothing illegal about any of it to go to the police about. The photos are the property of the company that took them. They can do whatever they want with them. Most companies have you sign a release stating they can use your photos. My daughter's grad photo has been used for advertisement for the company that took her photo.

 

[piglet too]

"Scary Intentions"? Were they naked shots? If not, there's nothing illegal about any of it to go to the police about. The photos are the property of the company that took them. They can do whatever they want with them. Most companies have you sign a release stating they can use your photos. My daughter's grad photo has been used for advertisement for the company that took her photo.

He altered photos of young ladies, potentially making them more appealing to what he wants in a woman. I believe it could be innocent, but it could also be the start of something more. I feel that going to the police allows them to make sure that this was nothing more than practicing his photo skills. I've seen situations that seem innocent, turn out not to be, and people said "if only there were warning signs" or "if only we had realized what he was really up to".

 

[Allons-y!]

"Scary Intentions"? Were they naked shots? If not, there's nothing illegal about any of it to go to the police about. The photos are the property of the company that took them. They can do whatever they want with them. Most companies have you sign a release stating they can use your photos. My daughter's grad photo has been used for advertisement for the company that took her photo.

Some assistant photographer "enhances" photos of young girls - of his own accord - and you think it's not even a little odd?

ETA: I just realized where I recognized your screen name from - the Ex's and Ohs thread:

You do teach about appropriateness though, I hope?
The song is about a woman who puts out for men - lots of men. And she talks about what she does to them, a bit explicitly. She thinks she's awesome because they all want her - but she's easy, that's all.

So, you seem to be quite opposed on that thread to lyrics, but you are okay with what the photographer did. Those two notions don't seem to be consistent to me.

Anyway, maybe it's not something the police could do anything about, but it's definitely in the potentially creep realm to me (and others, as evidenced above). If nothing else, it should at least make people read their contracts with photographers more carefully.

 

[DisneyOma]

Some assistant photographer "enhances" photos of young girls - of his own accord - and you think it's not even a little odd?

ETA: I just realized where I recognized your screen name from - the Ex's and Ohs thread:

So, you seem to be quite opposed on that thread to lyrics, but you are okay with what the photographer did. Those two notions don't seem to be consistent to me.

Anyway, maybe it's not something the police could do anything about, but it's definitely in the potentially creep realm to me (and others, as evidenced above). If nothing else, it should at least make people read their contracts with photographers more carefully.

If it's something to do with the job, why in the world would it be a police thing? I get that it seems creepy because it could be your child's photo being altered - but why would that make any difference? If the guy wanted to use the photos in an inappropriate way, he wouldn't necessarily need to alter them, etc. Why is it that the altering makes it all so much more of an issue? Almost every photo of a model in any ad or magazine, etc, has been altered in some way. We have a class at our high school called digital imaging - teaching people how to do it. For some, it is an art, and needs to be practiced. Jumping from that to making the guy some pervert?

The post of mine you quoted has nothing to do with this topic, not sure why you brought it up. Explaining the lyrics of a song about having multiple sex partners that seemed inappropriate for a toddler to sing, and editing digital images?

 

[Allons-y!]

If it's something to do with the job, why in the world would it be a police thing? I get that it seems creepy because it could be your child's photo being altered - but why would that make any difference? If the guy wanted to use the photos in an inappropriate way, he wouldn't necessarily need to alter them, etc. Why is it that the altering makes it all so much more of an issue? Almost every photo of a model in any ad or magazine, etc, has been altered in some way. We have a class at our high school called digital imaging - teaching people how to do it. For some, it is an art, and needs to be practiced. Jumping from that to making the guy some pervert?

The post of mine you quoted has nothing to do with this topic, not sure why you brought it up. Explaining the lyrics of a song about having multiple sex partners that seemed inappropriate for a toddler to sing, and editing digital images?

Hm, I didn't say it was a police thing. In fact, I said "maybe it in't, but..." Perhaps you misunderstood that phrasing, but it means that while the former is not true, the latter part of the statement in, in my opinion. I'm well acquainted with photo manipulation, and yes it does take practice. This instance of "practice," whether innocent or not, should not have been done. Just as a teacher knows better than to be in a closed room with no windows with a student, it should be a no-brainer to not alter these kinds of photos in this way.

I do see a correlation between your two posts. Your post from the other thread had a clear distaste for the main character in the song since she chose to have multiple sexual partners. Yet you see nothing wrong with a photographer altering images of young teens in to appear sexier. The two mindsets don't match in my view. I respect your right to have those opinions, of course, as it's my right to see them in a different light. That's what makes the world go 'round.

 

[cijay]

So it turns out about 5 or 6 of the girls were photoshopped to "enhance" their figures (and one face) by an assistant. The photos were not supposed to be sent to us however. He said he was "practicing" but somehow we got the "practice" photos. Rumors range from he was going to use the pics for his own portfolio (despite actually not taking them) to he was making the girls more to his own liking for personal use (ew)
The main photographer from what I hear was very upset . The coach was livid, and the school has immediately stopped using them.

I smell a certain farmer's fertilizer material in that excuse.

 

[Hibiscus]

The "thing to do" among photo studios now is to "show off" (advertising, social media) nice photos of girls that the photographer finds unattractive so that they can say, "we made a silk purse out of this sow's ear!" Most of these photos are printed unedited and most families don't realize the implication, happily giving permission for their child's photo to be used. I find this practice deplorable.

And now, in addition to that, we have creeps actually editing photos of teenage girls "for personal use." Disgusting.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Does it seem creepy that someone working for the photographer edited the photos of younger teen girls to have more mature, curvy bodies? Yes.

Is there anything illegal about editing photos for your own use, photos of clothed individuals, individuals whose parents gave permission for those photos to be taken even? Nope. Not that I am aware of.

If the person who did the editing then tried to pass the photos off as his own work---there may be grounds for the photographer to report him to police.

Or, if the assistant tries to sell these photos and profit off of them, then perhaps the parents have some legal grounds to report it and pursue this in the legal arena.

Otherwise, i have to agree---this is perhaps odd, possibly even creepy and weird, but that doesn't make it illegal--nor does it mean the girls are in some sort of danger, etc.