Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
>
> I haven't verified but yeeeshhh loool > > Edit: Morphing itself isn't bad, bad morphing is bad. Great morphs don't look like morphs at all
This is from some photoshoot, and it looks like an isolated case for that model. Would be a shame for someone to end up on a soft blacklist just because a third-party photographer did bad edits.
I suggest “soft” blacklisting when the evidence suggests the model is doing morphs herself, repeatedly.
That's actually a really good point. There are a disturbing number of photographers who edit photos of their models without the model's consent.
I had that post about Hayley Hamilton recently.
Now she is definitely photoshopping!
Oh, so taking issue with lying and liars is the new cynical? I have no issue with morphs, but trying to pass them off as real is deceptive and evil. Unfortunately sometimes morphs are hard to detect and some might slip through the cracks, that doesn't mean we should stop caring.
If you want to look at fantasy go to deviantart, there is a treasure trove for morphed and manipulated or fully artificial images there. Why insist on allowing them here?
Oh, so taking issue with lying and liars is the new cynical? I have no issue with morphs, but trying to pass them off as real is deceptive and evil. Unfortunately sometimes morphs are hard to detect and some might slip through the cracks, that doesn't mean we should stop caring.
If you want to look at fantasy go to deviantart, there is a treasure trove for morphed and manipulated or fully artificial images there. Why insist on allowing them here?
No. Accusing people of morphs without solid proof is cynical. As I stated in previous posts, I hate morphs and definitely want them pointed out when we know they're morphs. Accusing non-morphs of being altered is just the boy who cried wolf. Suspicion is not evidence. I stop listening after a while.
Why is it "evil?" Dishonest and deceptive, yes, but "evil?" That's pretty drastic.
No. Accusing people of morphs without solid proof is cynical. As I stated in previous posts, I hate morphs and definitely want them pointed out when we know they're morphs. Accusing non-morphs of being altered is just the boy who cried wolf. Suspicion is not evidence. I stop listening after a while.
Why is it "evil?" Dishonest and deceptive, yes, but "evil?" That's pretty drastic.
You claim that you hate morphs, but you've been carrying water for somebody who is blatantly photoshopping their photos. You either don't hate morphs like you claim or you've spent so much time looking at morphed photos that you've lost the ability to discern reality from fiction.
There is no woman on the planet who looks like Irina whatshername. It's not cynicism, it's being familiar with human anatomy. She's not even photoshopping her pictures well, she genuinely looks stupid.
You claim that you hate morphs, but you've been carrying water for somebody who is blatantly photoshopping their photos. You either don't hate morphs like you claim or you've spent so much time looking at morphed photos that you've lost the ability to discern reality from fiction.
There is no woman on the planet who looks like Irina whatshername. It's not cynicism, it's being familiar with human anatomy. She's not even photoshopping her pictures well, she genuinely looks stupid.
We already agreed to disagree on that.
The head shrinking thing just looks stupid. Every, single, time. I never understood how someone somewhere considered that a good idea in the first place.
The head shrinking thing just looks stupid. Every, single, time. I never understood how someone somewhere considered that a good idea in the first place.
the filter was just a joke filter at first just olike everything else. now it has a regular use, just a like a lot of the pretty minor filters that can change appearance, like skin smoothers, eye changes, things that add color in a minor way
the filter was just a joke filter at first just olike everything else. now it has a regular use, just a like a lot of the pretty minor filters that can change appearance, like skin smoothers, eye changes, things that add color in a minor way
Perhaps it was intended as a joke filter in the West, but not in the East. Photo booths in Japan almost all have options to decrease the size of your face and it's 100x worse in South Korea. South Korea has the most plastic surgery per capita in the world. Not only that, but they dwarf most other countries in terms of facial procedures. It's become increasingly popular to have your jaw shaved down, which is an absolutely insane surgery that nobody should ever have done. You're starting to see surgeons in California that specialize in it despite the procedure being unpopular in America solely because of how popular it is amongst Koreans.
Warped beauty standards are a thing everywhere, but the South Korean obsession with having unnaturally thin faces is particularly unsettling because of how divorced it is from proper facial developement. The filters just feed into that even more.
It is an unfortunate fact that many Asian social "influencers" suffer from shrunken head syndrome. Other women like to falsify themselves through other means, which includes but is not restricted to:
There are many, many techniques that the lazier crowd has utilized in order to pass themselves off as "fit." And in other cases, sadly, it's simply some form of body dysmorphia. In either case, this is why Chainer has posed this question.
And yet so far, it seems users would rather just argue about the existence of a system that seems to be the best compromise that satisfies both sides of the issue.
It is entirely possible for someone with photoshop CS and even basic knowledge of the liquify and distort tools to convincingly give themselves bigger muscles and a smaller waist. And to do it in a way that’s not easily clocked, even by a pro retoucher.
You’re only fooling yourself if you don’t think that a HUGE proportions of the images here are not altered. Especially for the more serious and professional girls who can afford it.
It’s a lot harder to do with video, so look there if total reality is your thing.
The candidates for "soft-blacklisting" would include those who are obviously morphing most of their images. We don't really care about those who are doing it to say 10% or fewer of their images.
The obvious argument against the "soft-blacklist" is "well everyone does it so why not allow all photoshopped images?" The obvious argument against that would be "there is a line to be drawn, otherwise the site will be flooded with images that look more like digital art rather than real life."
I would think that most users would fall into the latter category.
The obvious argument against the "soft-blacklist" is "well everyone does it so why not allow all photoshopped images?" The obvious argument against that would be "there is a line to be drawn, otherwise the site will be flooded with images that look more like digital art rather than real life."
After all this is well put together. There is a LOT modding and claiming to want RAW shots here would possibly make you delete/blacklist 50% of the pics here or more, as there's even a lot of correction in most selfiecams etc etc blah.
The line to draw would maybe be a bit wider as we all will have to decide by feeling and say: THIS is way too much of a change of shape, skin, refelction ..... or THAT is still okay because of beeing a common fotographers edit and not far from the real person.
There's that guy on Instagram, "goob" who is mentioned in this thread (I had never heard of him before) . I dunno if he's ever picked up on Irina Pimenova?
Thing is, I watched some of his takes on other alleged self morphers and a lot of the time, I often can't see in the examples he posts, where the obvious (to him) alterations are - I know Photoshop well -I usually see it when it is used - but this guy seems to see it when supposedly so subtle. It's also harder to see his examples close enough because he's posting them within a video.
But Primenova seems so unnaturally thin - I'm prepared to see evidence that she is some anatomical freak in real life, but I doubt it.
We do have also unfortunately have a generation growing up who are led to think think Playboy/glamour type models all have smooth flawless skin. The use of that kind of airbrushing is so ubiquitous in advertising these days
Quite a few FBBs have bad skin (due to age/motherhood as well as ingestion of substances ) so leaving blemishes in is possibly some indication that tampering may not be so likely.
"everybody does it" is not an argument. It is a weak cop out.
And while I personally hate every type of manipulation, the line should clearly be drawn at changing shape or proportions. While it's just color and removing blemishes it is not perpetuating unattainable results.
And to answer the above question passing it off as real is evil because it causes or promotes body dysmorphia among naive youngsters, who are more likely to turn to invasive procedures or dangerous PEDs trying to attain a look that was not real to begin with.
And while I personally hate every type of manipulation, the line should clearly be drawn at changing shape or proportions. While it's just color and removing blemishes it is not perpetuating unattainable results.
And to answer the above question passing it off as real is evil because it causes or promotes body dysmorphia among naive youngsters, who are more likely to turn to invasive procedures or dangerous PEDs trying to attain a look that was not real to begin with.
That makes sense. I agree with all of your comment quoted above.
And to answer the above question passing it off as real is evil because it causes or promotes body dysmorphia among naive youngsters, who are more likely to turn to invasive procedures or dangerous PEDs trying to attain a look that was not real to begin with.
Honest question: do you think there's a lot of naive female youngsters coming here to look at pics of girls like Eun Hee Kang? They see her pics and then scale up their PED use to try and match that?
Like they're serious enough about bodybuilding and they have access to anabolics but decide to use photos on girlswithmuscle as their only reference point? And this is the only place they'd find her pics... they're on on IG or Reddit or Saradas or anywhere else?
In an overall sense I agree with you. It's a bummer that so many pics are altered. And young people have been lied to for the better part of 50 years on this stuff. I remember buying Muscular Development in the 90s and thinking that I could look like Ronnie Coleman if I just bought more creatine and flax seed oil at GNC. But that's a large scale problem. This is a website that (I'd imagine) is about 99% male and overwhelmingly used to get sexually excited about females with muscle. That's why there's lot of threads on "How to meet an FBB" and image themes that show muscular women in every imaginable situation. If you go to a forum about baseball you don't see a thread called "BASEBALL PLAYER FEET" or "Baseball Bros Pumped, Ripped & Soaked in Sweat."
So.. given that these altered pics exist and given that they turn lots of people on and this is a site that pretty much exists to turn people on, I just don't think it's a big deal if they're on here.
Honest question: do you think there's a lot of naive female youngsters coming here to look at pics of girls like Eun Hee Kang? They see her pics and then scale up their PED use to try and match that?
Like they're serious enough about bodybuilding and they have access to anabolics but decide to use photos on girlswithmuscle as their only reference point?
In an overall sense I agree with you. It's a bummer that so many pics are altered. And young people have been lied to for the better part of 50 years on this stuff. I remember buying Muscular Development in the 90s and thinking that I could look like Ronnie Coleman if I just bought more creatine and flax seed oil at GNC. But that's a large scale problem. This is a website that (I'd imagine) is about 99% male and overwhelmingly used to get sexually excited about females with muscle. That's why there's lot of threads on "How to meet an FBB" and image themes that show muscular women in every imaginable situation. If you go to a forum about baseball you don't see a thread called "BASEBALL PLAYER FEET" or "Baseball Bros Pumped, Ripped & Soaked in Sweat."
So.. given that these altered pics exist and given that they turn lots of people on and this is a site that pretty much exists to turn people on, I just don't think it's a big deal if they're on here.
Well, the pics/clips aren't made for this website. GWM is more like a FBB aggregate website that pulls from other websites, like Instagram and Tik Tok. Granted, we are talking about what to do with morphed images on GWM, but I think his criticism is still valid since the pics are seen on other platforms by people who aren't necessarily female muscle fetishists.
Well, the pics/clips aren't made for this website. GWM is more like a FBB aggregate website that pulls from other websites, like Instagram and Tik Tok. Granted, we are talking about what to do with morphed images on GWM, but I think his criticism is still valid since the pics are seen on other platforms by people who aren't necessarily female muscle fetishists.
I gotcha, yeah. And I understand the overall criticism of the practice. But yes, we're speaking about those pictures on this site.
I'm very much a female muscle fetishist, and that's why I come here. I love this site for that. And I actually can't stand Eun Hee Kang. The head-shrinking thing drives me crazy. It looks unnatural and it's a turn-off. I understand that there's a strong element of projection where we want to know the real identity of someone who arouses us.
But she has a massive online following for a reason, and just because I don't like the pics doesn't mean that other people share that. She's undoubtedly a very muscular woman and her slightly altered pics are distinct from an AI fake or a real morph. I think if the model is muscular, she has a decent sized public profile, and the edits are within reason, I don't see a problem with it. I'm sure that many guys enjoy it, and this site exists to offer photos that guys enjoy.
We're just getting into virtue signaling at this point. Whether it's evil to manipulate photos and who it influences is irrelevant as it's outside the scope of the website and conversation.
It would be best if blacklisting were implemented at the user level. In other words, everyone should be able to remove whoever they want from their "feed" because where the line should be drawn is entirely subjective.
IMO, there's no difference between shrinking your face and using a filter that effectively hides your cellulite/fat, making you appear more toned than you are. One gives the illusion that your muscles are bigger than they are. The other gives the illusion that the muscles are more toned than they are. Both create a false representation of a person's muscularity, yet one is accepted, and the other isn't.
So yes, the "everyone does it" argument is relevant because the website would cease to exist if the goal was to forbid women who falsely represent their physiques. But if people want to cherrypick and allow certain fake physiques, then let everyone decide for their selves where that line should be drawn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-e46xdcUo