A couple of folks have asked if Nataliya is a silicone doll. It's a great question! I discussed this a little in a reply to a comment on one of her shots, and thought I'd copypasta and do a longer "answer" here. There is, of course, an objective truth. But is that the whole truth? So is she a human model made up to look like a doll, or a doll trying to look like a human? Is the image "as shot", or was it digitally manipulated? Is that a bruise on her leg we missed with the make-up, or is it just a dirt smudge? Am I trying to trick you in to thinking she's real, or trick you in to thinking she's a doll (or am I just a jerk - wait, don't answer that). And once you decide (rightly or not!) it is one way or the other, how does that change your reaction to the picture, to Nataliya, or to me, and why?
Not trying to be snarky or profound or anything (well, maybe trying for a bit of profundity ), but this topic fascinates me. Photographers have always had the ability to manipulate images, and of course women have been using make up for at least 5000 years (in ancient Egypt, we know the Hittites used it, etc.), but between digital photo-manipulation and physical surgery society has taken this transformation of reality to a whole new level. I'd guess virtually every depiction of a women in a static ad (and, increasingly, even video ads) as well as most of the "photos" in articles have been manipulated in some significant way. At some point very soon purely digital renditions will be indistinguishable from reality. What does that mean for society and how humans perceive reality? Deep stuff - way to deep this early in the morning before I've had my coffee
"I know I am but what are you?"
So what's the "answer"? I'd prefer to leave it as ambiguous. But, I will say this: most of these are "as shot", just dumped from Leica DNG to jpeg and copyright tagged, although in a couple I cleaned up some sensor dust. Oh, and Nataliya is more real than any of the Kardashians (now *that* was snarky and utterly uninformative!).