22 Words

Singer uses her music video to intriguingly show how fake performers are in videos

January 21, 2014 | By Abraham | 66 comments

Hungarian musician Boggie sits still and sings for her latest music video… So what makes it interesting?

As she performs, her video editor retouches her skin, hair, facial features, and lighting during the song so that by the end everything looks “right”…

(via b3ta)

Share with your friends using the buttons below!

Like 22 Words on Facebook

66 Comments

  1. Ben says:

    To clarify, the tools used here to “fix” her appearance are made up. There is no software that works like photoshop for music videos….yet. Certainly there are ways to manipulate any part of her appearance, but most of the manipulation seen here is still accomplished with good old fashioned makeup and hair styling. The only difference is that it’s composited together at great expense after filming, which still takes a lot of time.

    I just want to make sure that people don’t think the distortion of female beauty is so easily accomplished or as prevalent in video as it is in fashion photography….yet. There is still a great deal of performance and prep involved in making a music video. The use of the word “fake” in the heading here seems too strong. The most “fake” thing about this video is the process of manipulation depicted over the course of these 3.5 minutes.

    If this video is meant to have a message like those Dove commercials, I suggest that it be taken as a warning of what’s yet to come.

      1. Ben says:

        No you can’t edit a video with Photoshop. You can import individual frames and manipulate them as a series of still photos, but it would be incredibly tedious, inconsistent, and time-consuming, unlike the fake program used in the video above.

        1. Pedro says:

          Which does not mean it can’t or is not done.

          Or did you expect the video to be six-months long to keep it realistic?

    1. Leigh Ann says:

      Oh yeah, you can absolutely Photoshop videos. I’ve seen a skin smoothing feature used firsthand. It’s often used on women to make their skin porcelain perfect. From what I’ve seen, you’re right in that it’s not as easy as it’s depicted here, but I believe it’s possible.

      1. Leigh Ann says:

        P.S. I may have misused “Photoshop.” I’m not sure if that’s the program used, but nonetheless, it’s possible to change someone’s appearance in video.

    2. Derrick says:

      I think you’re missing the point Ben. I don’t think anyone watched this and thought it was truly that easy to completely change an appearance. The point is that people who want to be celebrities dramatically alter their appearance in misleading ways, and consumers eat it up without hesitation. In my opinion this is simply a way of showing people that they idolize celebrities who don’t exist. I don’t think fake is a misleading word in the heading of this video, I do believe it is an extremely dramatized version of what truly happens, in the sense that it takes a lot longer that 3.5 minutes to accomplish what is accomplished to her appearance in this video. However this exactly change of appearance that frequently happens in celebrity videos whatever they may be. I am not saying you are wrong, i am just voicing my view on the subject.

      1. lindsay says:

        honestly i spent the whole video wishing that editing was that easy, wishing i had that program. i get the message but im a graphic designer, not having to make selections would be pretty boss in my book.

      2. Ben says:

        I understand the point of videos that show LEGITIMATE appearance manipulation (ala the Dove videos), which is most common in print media. This video for Boggie, however, is creating an entertaining but sensationalized account of the “photoshopping” process, borrowing that compare/contrast/ideal-image manipulation formula that has been so popular lately in discussions about beauty and society. Perhaps it’s meant to aid that discussion, but the portrayal of said manipulation in this case is just as misleading as the portrayal of celebrity appearance. If demonstrations like this are meant to help people better grasp the degree of appearance alteration that goes on in our world, then they should be truthful about how much can be or is altered in various mediums. In other words, accurate representation of the craft is important to having a healthy perception of physical appearance.

        Please provide the readers here some examples of “celebrity videos whatever they may be” that feature a significant “change of appearance” that goes beyond the standard hair/make-up/wardrobe work, and of-course plastic surgery (all of which are tangible things a consumer can obtain. Because of the extreme cost involved with the manipulation of moving images, most of the time the celebrity you’re watching on the screen is physically the same in real life. Their eyes aren’t inaccurately large, their cheekbones haven’t been lifted, and their skin probably hasn’t been smoothed.

        So, if anything, this video is uniquely poignant because it is doing to the visual artists what they do to celebrities and models by creating an idealized-representation of their craft.

    3. Mike says:

      Just to clarify

      PHOTOshop is used for photos, not videos. Photoshop is not a synonym for edit.

      And Ben isn’t criticizing the video or the message, simply saying how the process is a bit more complicated then the video lets on.

      1. Roalf says:

        Yes you CAN edit videos in Photoshop ever since the CS (Creative Suite) version were released (..and now with the newly released CC or Creative Cloud). You can even animate with it. The name PHOTOshop was ORIGINALLY meant to edit images but as technology evolved, so is the product. So again, you CAN edit videos with Photoshop, you just need to be educated with it and not just look at the name and assume you know everything.

        1. Thingmaker says:

          I can assure you as a professional VFX artist and photoshop expert, there is no software that work like the one in this video. The point if the video is valid anyway but the tech being demonstrated does not exist. Photoshop does not track multiple axis motion.

        2. Alec says:

          Raolf…have you actually ever done video editing on photoshop???because I have..and quite frequently..It is nowhere this easy..not even remotely close..it can be done..but that type of accuracy doesn’t exist without the help of the other Adobe Suites i.e. After Effects and Premiere.. The graphics for the video might have been done with photoshop, composited in after effects, and rendered out of premiere via dynamic-link…PHOTOSHOPS primary goal is and will always be still images…

          Just because you CAN do it on Photoshop..doesn’t mean it was done in photoshop…

        3. Ben says:

          Mike, thank you for backing me up.

          Rolf, you are demonstrating an important level of ignorance. I don’t mean to say you are an ignorant person; I don’t actually know you. And I say “important” because it touches on the reason I commented in the first place. Not only are you hung up on terminology, but more-significantly, you are talking about the visual arts involved with video/film manipulation the same way that people talk about a beautiful celebrity when they don’t realize that the celebrity’s image has been heavily manipulated. They assume it’s just a matter of a celeb having really good make-up or genetics, and you, Rolf, seem to assume that it’s just a matter of having the right program (or suite of programs). In reality it’s far more complicated and limited than that…especially when the images are moving.

    4. Kace says:

      YES YOU CAN edit videos in Photoshop ever since the CS (Creative Suite) version were released (..and now with the newly released CC or Creative Cloud). You can even animate with it. The name PHOTOshop was ORIGINALLY meant to edit images but as technology evolved, so is the product. So again, you CAN edit videos with Photoshop, you just need to be educated with it and not just look at the name and assume you know everything.

    5. Tink says:

      Yes, there’s no program that works exactly like this; in real life it’s far more time-consuming, complicated and requires a lot of expertise to not make you look like a gristly barbie doll.

      There’s certainly an increasing focus on post-production editing in films, though, which can certainly be extended to multimillion dollar music videos. You can edit videos if you went frame-by-frame. And yes, it takes a LOT longer (hell, even with my relatively limited experience of photo-manipulation software as an artist and hobbyist I can tell you it takes hours and hours). But retouching is a huge problem, and it’s getting worse.

      A lot of the models and photographers I know end up with hugely, obviously, retouched photos that look almost nothing like their original, because this is the direction things – the ‘market’ – have gone in. And yet this is seen as normal, desirable, even. Yet these people insist heavy retouching just makes their photos look better, but also confide they feel insecure because they don’t look like that in real life. Seeing your appearance, or that of the human body, as something that can be snipped and trimmed at will if it is not ‘good enough’ tends to make people feel less satisfied and more conscious of minor ‘flaws’.

      1. Rachel R. says:

        Well, who the heck would want to sit around and watch it in real time? I don’t think anyone thought this was done by pointing-and-clicking in just 3-5 minutes. I don’t think we’re *supposed* to think that. The mechanism is really not the point (it’s merely the device used for the video). The point is that what we see is not just everyday women putting on normal makeup like normal women and looking like they do. It takes ABnormal amounts of work to make most of them look like what we see. That’s true regardless of how it’s accomplished.

  2. Karsten Piper says:

    The beer goggles of film editing. (I knew I’d finally had too much at about 3:10 when the fuzzifying tool came on.)

  3. Sleeping Realities says:

    I love the song. The message of fake beauty makes me sad.

    Most of all, I hate that they made her skin lighter. I am so sad that the culture’s attitude is that “fairer=better.” Fair skin is beautiful; so is dark skin. This singer has beautiful olive skin, and it should be celebrated, (and the freckles should be kept!)

    Additionally, a good audio corollary to the visuals on this would be to have her voice start out with no effects, and gradually add the compressor, the auto-tune, the reverb, the EQ…

    It sounds like her producer doesn’t effect this singer’s voice in as heavy-handed a way as has become common in some genres, but there are obviously effects in that recording–like every pop recording. Many singers wouldn’t be AT ALL recognizable if you compared their pre-effects voices with their doctored up voices. (One reason I love classical music is that the talent and skill is practically raw, except for the natural reverberation from the space they are playing/singing in. Sometimes you don’t know whether pop singers are really talented, or just pretty faces who can croak enough into a microphone that the engineer can carve a tune out of.)

    1. Matt says:

      TBH, I thought she was kind of cute at first. The only thing I didn’t like were the “bags” under her eyes. Aside from that, she looked fine.

      1. Anna says:

        Matt, whatever way she’s presented it’s not for you to critique based on what you like about women’s bodies. That’s messed up. Women don’t exist for you to enjoy their cuteness or sexiness. We are people. We look the way we look for ourselves.

        1. Jacob says:

          I think you missed his point of both the video and his comment.

          She’s changing her appearance in the video to appeal to a certain demographic, which will include men.

          What he means is that the “fixes” made to her in the video were irrelevant as she looked good before. He never said anything about her existence being for his enjoyment of whatever way you skewed his comment in your mind.

          I’m not really sure why his comment is even problematic.

          1. Twink says:

            His comment would be innocuous, if it wasn’t for the context of how society depicts women in general. How every time a woman’s mentioned for any reason, regardless of her achievements, someone has to mention how attractive (or not) she is, and derail the conversation into being all about her looks. I know what he said wasn’t that bad, and was fair enough; she certainly doesn’t look hideous before the modifications!

            But as women, we’re just a bit sick of every post involving a woman having an ‘I’d do her’ comment (or 100). That you can’t even walk down the street without some dude giving his unsolicited opinion on your looks and whether he’d do you.

            The point is also that women don’t just modify themselves for men; there’s also the element of trying to impress other women, and trying to fit into a narrow, shifting category that society wants us to be. The images of women in the media are certainly viewed with a male (i.e. sexualised) gaze, but they’re not just meant to appeal to men, but to appear to a male-centric narrow beauty standard that is actually pretty riducolous to a lot of men, too. How often do we get men saying ‘but these models are all too skinny, I prefer women with XYZ’. The standards aren’t being set by men, or by women, since they exclude most people’s reality, but by the standards of an ever-shifting aesthetic that is based on fantasy; no real person looks like an airbrushed model, even the original model herself!

        1. John says:

          Not the way it’s shown at all. If you want to use Photoshop to change EVERY frame of a video so make her look the way you want, then good luck. That’s going to be a lot of work.

          Unless you just mean the very simple edits that it does, which aren’t what anyone here is talking about at all. The software to do what is in this video (the software people are actually asking about) does not exist.

  4. Stephanie says:

    I edit videos for a living and there is no way to “photoshop” a moving image. You can photoshop a picture and add it as a layer on top of a moving image but the program used for special effects by Adobe is called “After Effects” and its interface doesn’t look anything like the one used in this video. It took someone hundreds of hours to produce this video, not the length of a song.

  5. HERB says:

    Why would someone put this out there? Just to be nasty and say that everything we see is really a lie? Is there no truth in media anymore? I really don’t know ANYTHING about the technology available in editing videos but I came across this: “Get creative with your digital video using the Motion workspace in Photoshop CS5 Extended. Make basic adjustments to color balance, tone, curves, and more. Or experiment with one-of-a-kind video-editing features including lens corrections and the ability to apply stunning, hardware-accelerated effects filters with the Pixel Bender plug-in.” From what this is saying, it sounds like you CAN make corrections to a video BUT it is very BASIC. What the video is showing is that they are editing to more extremes. Some of you are saying it’s possible, some of you are saying that it doesn’t exist. What’s the truth?

    1. Tink says:

      Herb,
      Any film with decent special effects shows that it is possible to edit video digitally. Most music videos and most photography that contains people at all involve editing these days, too. What these people here are arguing about is not whether it’s possible (it definitely is), but minor points such as *how*, and *which program* and how long it would take. If all that’s confusing, just take away the point that it is possible, and has been happening for years.

      1. Ben says:

        No doubt anything is possible with digital image manipulation. What’s being debated here is less about “how” and more about the degree to which moving images are manipulated. Still images are a different story –they are almost universally heavily manipulated, but there is still a difficulty barrier with moving images.

  6. Steven Smith says:

    This sort of work is definitely possible, in video. It would take a ton of time as the person would be making adjustments almost every frame. It is not the technology that we should be appalled by, but the ethical implications of it. This sort of work is wide spread for pictures on websites and magazines, and this is the type of thing that many of us compare ourselves to and determine our own ideas of what we must look like.

  7. Libertine says:

    Most decent post production suites will apply any number of effects to multiple frames without this having to be individually done. This happens in Off and online edits.
    Rotoscoping can be time consuming (A Pain the arse!) and no substitute for getting it right when shooting with great make up and lighting…. But lets not kid ourselves Unfortunately if we auto tune why wouldn’t people alter the images. I’ve just had to stop studio recorded EP audio going on to a live gig video audio track…..!!! To me thats not what happened LIVE and make the artist look a jerk!! The live Audio is great anyway!! Best to all!!

    1. Rachel R. says:

      I don’t necessarily thing it’s bad to tweak the artist’s appearance in a video. BUT women need to realize that what they’re seeing is NO comparable to what they’d expect to see in the mirror. It’s not a matter of good vs. bad, but simply of recognizing reality vs. fiction or artistry.

      (Although I do agree with whomever pointed out that it’s pretty sad they automatically lightened her skin here. I do think we have an issue when we start making performers into some*one* they’re not, when it’s not for the sake of creating a “character.”)

  8. Brian says:

    Just curious. I do not know much about Photoshop or virtual technology. But curious, could you use CGI technology to do something similar as what was done in the video? And even if not, with the advances in technology, could this not be something that would be possible in the next few years?

  9. Sara says:

    I think that a lot of people are missing the point. Whether this kind of program exists or not is not the point. Most of the *edits* that are being made just mimic the effects of make-up, lighting, hairspray, costuming, etc. It’s a lot easier to show the process as if it were digital than to show the girl getting her make-up and hair done and being put into experimental lighting shots. It speeds up the process so that we get from beginning to end quicker and then it feels more drastic. Make up and lighting are the music video tools of photoshop. The point is that the person that we see is not the person who walks into the studio in the morning. The “program” is just a clever way of getting that point across, while relating back to our knowledge regarding the amount of photoshop that goes into printed advertisements.

  10. Reality says:

    I think Sara explains it very well. It’s not about HOW the changes are being done. It’s about the concept of reality as it is presented to use. The same alteration of experience has happened for decades in the music itself. A decent looking singer with an average voice can become something completely different by the time the audio and video wizards are done with it.

  11. Chelly says:

    Well I don’t know much about this kind of stuff but I want to pose a question and see if anyone will respond. For those of you who have seen movies such as Avatar and Captain America…. isn’t this the same technology that was used to make these movies? What about Captain America when he is small and thin, and then when they make him look way bigger? Anyone?

  12. Dona Fisher says:

    I don’t think it changed her that much. She really didn’t look much different. The song sounded beautiful but I didn’t dare share it on Facebook as I was a little nervous as to what she was saying.

  13. Kace says:

    Yes you CAN edit videos in Photoshop ever since the CS (Creative Suite) version were released (..and now with the newly released CC or Creative Cloud). You can even animate with it. The name PHOTOshop was ORIGINALLY meant to edit images but as technology evolved, so is the product. So again, you CAN edit videos with Photoshop, you just need to be educated with it and not just look at the name and assume you know everything.

  14. Sarin Nnhunhu says:

    Everybody’s an expert.
    I love it.
    Most dont have time to read what you deem to think is important.
    I wish there was a shutup filter, on posts.
    Keep it to yourself, who cares.
    Great video.

  15. David says:

    The video is a compilation of a series of sequences shot with different hairstyles and make up, stitched together and the fake editing software user interface composited over it with after effects. It took weeks of post production. Sorry if I disappointed anyone.

  16. Shawn says:

    What great shape our society is in, when we sit and argue about whether photoshop can edit videos, instead of talking about the meaning of this song in the first place.

    1. Sam says:

      I think the point is though, that it’s not quite as prevalent as this video would lead you believe.

  17. Ashley says:

    People you’re missing the point! It’s not about whether videos can be edited in photoshop or not, it’s about an artist taking a stand against fake beauty. We are all beautiful for who we are and how we are, we shouldn’t feel like we need “editing” to be beautiful. GREAT video!

    1. Ben says:

      I assure you, the “how” is not important to us visual artists who are chiming in here. The concern is “the amount” of manipulation being portrayed. Sure makeup and hair styling and even plastic surgery can alter people’s ideals of beauty, but there’s a whole other level of manipulation to be concerned about when videos start featuring physical modifications that aren’t physically possible. The over-the-top extra-scary portrayal of this second level is what some of us are chiming in about. I don’t think anyone here is missing the point about “fake beauty’…it’s not a new point…but I do think some viewers are being mislead about the prevalence and amount of manipulation in videos.

  18. Gashu says:

    All this arguing about Photoshop editing videos… Photoshop cannot be used to edit videos. What would be used is Adobe After Effects, which is essentially Photoshop for video :)

  19. clash of clan hack says:

    There are a few buildings that have to be protected by walls and a few
    that have to be left outside the walls. Have you met that goal or succeeded
    the original comment you made to Kathleen De Vere.
    We made plans for scavenging for additional supplies.

  20. Point says:

    I think that its quite depressing that people create these physically unattainable images, this image of perfection that nobody- not even the person it being done to can achieve. It sets an unhealthy standard for women (and men) and I believe we should start showing the way people really look. This woman is incredibly talented and beautiful without any enhancement, and that should be celebrated. I’m glad she made such an informative video.

  21. amy says:

    I’m glad you linked to this because now that I’ve been introduced to Boggie, I’m slightly obsessed. I just bought her album. Love her voice and the tunes are so catchy.

Leave a Reply

As seen on Huffington Post, CNN, BuzzFeed, New York Times, Scientific American, Mentalfloss, USA Today, Funny or Die, Gawker, Gizmodo, Laughing Squid, Boing Boing, Hot Air, Jezebel, Neatorama

About 22 Words

22 Words collects a blend of everything from the serious and creative to the silly and absurd. As your source for the crazy, curious, and comical side of the web, 22 Words can be counted on to share funny and fascinating viral content as well as more obscure (but equally interesting) pictures, videos, and more.

© 2014 | 22 Words

Privacy Policy

Close This Window Close