One would think that living in this time and place, with easy access to more stories and photos and video and recordings of everything you can think of than at any other point in history, you'd be able to really know what's going on.
Good luck with that.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but very little you see is really there. For example, people on magazine covers aren't real. Sorry. Those are reasonably attractive people who have been Photoshopped for days until every less-than-perfect pixel of the original image has been improved until the picture actually begins to glow, float over the art director's computer, and heal the sick.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Is the article I just read the one you actually wrote? Another great article. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I like the way you brought this one home. I wasn't expecting the last line, but it fit perfectly. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BTW, the first link in your article comes up "Page not found" for me. Is it supposed to?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Brilliant!
The clickable link to the demo didn't work, but copy/pasting it did.
I chuckled clicking back & forth on the breast enhancement (where they did a lot more "plumping" than just shadows, let me tell you!) until I read that the cover shot was a 14 year old girl. Umm...I feel very dirty now.
lol
That was a great article Chris.
I'm going to go poke dkw and make sure she's real.
And let's just never mention that clickable breast enhancement thingy...'kay?
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Yeah, there's a ) at the end of the link that makes it not work. Once you take that off, it works fine.
Jen
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That article is quite possibly one of the most important things I've ever seen written. The more people understand how unreal media is, the fewer people will take it seriously, and just enjoy it for the fluff that 99% of it is.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Wow, that site is amazing. I knew "retouching" was done, but I had no idea to what degree. Sheesh, they give her twice the hair volume and half the waistline. Even her lips get a plump.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fixed the link. And yup, that demo is amazing. Shmuel sent it to me a few weeks ago.
When Playboy interviewed John Cusack (last year?) he remarked on the ridiculous level of perfection magazine covers offer. "I mean, I've been with some of these women, and when I see them on a magazine cover I want them." (from memory)
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Wonderful! Amazing! I'm going to print off a copy and post it in the lunchroom.
*grin*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I just showed that link around the office. It was very disturbing. One guy kept clicking on the chin retouch and on the waist retouch and saying "Fat. Not Fat."
That girl is not remotely fat by any stretch of the imagination, even before retouching. Sheesh, it's no wonder anorexia and other eating disorders are so prevalent.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
My sister worked for the Advertising firm that made this Budweiser ad back in the mid eighties. She was a CPA for the firm and saw (audited) the bills.
Twenty years ago, the photo retouching bill was $16,000 for that one photo.
She was amazed at what they did to just the thighs in that photo.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
What??? You're not a 6'4" blond Adonis? I'm crushed!
However, I'm glad you're not a mongoose. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:What if that dress is all wrong for that news anchor's coloring? What if I think she'd look better in a fez and flip-flops? For that matter, what if I think the Seahawks would look better in fezzes and flip-flops?
*snorts drink through nose*
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I used to be a designer for an advertising agency in Seattle, and I did some major retouch-ups all the time. For one account I worked on Jamie Lee Curtis, Photoshopping off ten years for full-page spreads for the New York Times.
The advantage is that she loved it. When a reporter asked her why she pitched the particular product, she showed one of my ads and declared how great we made her look.
I think the whole process is pretty silly, but people prefer fantasy to reality by the way they spend their money evey day...
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Wow. It's incredible how much they change her appearance to make her look like the "perfect" woman. That's just disturbing. I must post this article somewhere.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm going to make sure my 13 year old daughter sees that.
Not that she is image-obsessed, but this will help keep her grounded.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I used to be a designer for an advertising agency in Seattle, and I did some major retouch-ups all the time. For one account I worked on Jamie Lee Curtis, Photoshopping off ten years for full-page spreads for the New York Times.
The advantage is that she loved it. When a reporter asked her why she pitched the particular product, she showed one of my ads and declared how great we made her look.
[ February 16, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well, people have been making flattering pictures of people for years. If you didn't want the painter to paint your pimples, he wouldn't. I'm not supporting it. We'd all be a whole lot prettier if photos on magazines were real rather than fake. I'm just saying idealisation is hardly new!
Personally, I don't find idealised pictures terribly attractive, because they are so smooth and empty. They're just pictures, and it's blatantly obvious. A real photographers untouched portrait, however, can be beautiful.
Great article, as usual!
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Wow, that demo IS amazing. I like the original better than the retouched one...she's human in the original. But the thing with her waist was really pause-making. I admit looking at some of those pictured waists thinking 'I used to look like that...and there's no reason I shouldn't look that way now, except I'm lazy and undisciplined.' Except that I never did look that way...I weighed 85lbs at 18, and never had a waist that narrow, even when it was only 22". Because waists that narrow aren't real. Thanks, Chris, you really have made my day. Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Wonderful, Chris.
Posted by Nell Gwyn (Member # 8291) on :
Awesome article!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Where do I get one of those that will retouch me in real life?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote:Interestingly, she was also behind an expose of this sort of thing in More magazine a few years ago.
I never read that before. Funny! The photos of her being "real" are nothing new to me, as I had to stare at them up close and personal all the time--my wife walked in once when I was working on her butt, so that was fun to explain.
I'm glad she continues to buck the system and show herself as she is. When she left the account and Catherine Zeta Jones moved in, Catherine was FAR from that. She expected perfection from her pictures, and nothing less.
It's funny that many of these models demand to be retouched, rather than there being some kind of conspiracy to "fool" the public (though that exists too, frankly).
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Another great article. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)