You know gals look pretty without photoshop
October 6th, 2008
I heard a rumour today that the government might be addressing concerns over children’s unrealistic body image ideas by forcing magazines to show a disclaimer that the model in the photograph has been digitally altered.
I love the idea, not because I don’t know when I’m looking at a magazine that someone has been airbrushed but it may it some small way reduce the amount of times that it happens, especially if the warning was some big ugly stamp like the cigarettes warnings (in Australia half the front cover of a pack of cigarettes shows a suitably awful picture of lung cancer etc and a warning).
Now some people may argue that people don’t want to look at ugly people on the cover of a magazine, I mean I’m as shallow as the next guy but I’m not really into computer animation in that way, and that’s what you are getting, an unrealistic portrayal of a woman who probably looks pretty good anyway.
I don’t know much about the above image, found it in an article at www.hilary.com about Britney and that first photo looks like an earlier photo, I’m sure it is touched up but she may have been younger there anyway (if not it’s a further illustration).  But it illustrates a point, I’m sure Christina is very pretty in real life, does she really need to be computer enhanced, maybe a good photographer could do something with her?
But it doesn’t just stop with the ladies, men get airbrushed too, take a look at my man Clive Owen (dude Sin City and Children of Men!!).  Now his face is bloody rough normally, it’s not a bad thing and women don’t seem to mind, but look at this ridiculous ad that he’s in (found at photoshopdisasters):
Is that really needed? Â Granted with normal rough skin he may not be the best man for the job, but I don’t think anyone likes him thanks to his anti-aging skin treatments. Â That’s poor endorsement, it shouldn’t be a chance to use my expensive photoshop package.
With all this crap about reality TV and people wanting to keep stuff real, how about our media start to present real photos of real people. Â I was watching America’s Top Model (I know, I know… sigh) and I can’t get over the technology that goes into a photo shoot, it used to be I guess a photographer trying to get or make a good shot, now we can just take a lot of pictures and morph them, or alter them (I know Tyra is very anti that so I’m not saying that’s what they do, I’m just commenting on the technology).
Real people are so much more interesting and a hell of a lot more sexy.
Some great posts and articles if you’re inclined to read more:
- The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill ‘Hot’
- The Week You Gave Us ‘Faith’ In The Internets
- A great example of the airbrush effect (don’t shoot the messenger either, the dude has skills)
Popularity: 3% [?]
More posts like this:
Categories: Stuff | Tags: airbrush, body image, Clive Owen, fake, Photoshop, unrealistic portrayal
“Real people are so much more interesting and a hell of a lot more sexy.”
I couldn’t agree with this statement more!
[Reply to this comment]
By Lee on October 6th, 2008 | Reply
I wish advertisers and magazines would listen to this.
[Reply to this comment]
Clive Owen is not liked by many because he’s a prettyboy. In fact, he’s liked by many because he not a prettyboy!
Hey Lancome, stop messing with Clive’s appeal.
As for the shots of Christina, I’m glad she changed her image from the black-hair-and-fake-tan days. To be honest though, the photo on the right is my preference as the other one is too immature and cutesy.
[Reply to this comment]
By Lee on October 6th, 2008 | Reply
It’s just mental how they’ve removed all the texture from his skin, the only thing I’d get from that image is that Lancome produces thick flesh coloured face paint and putty
LOL yeah that was just a stage I think Christina was going through, the image on the left just doesn’t feel real, so it’s unappealing to me in its blandness.
[Reply to this comment]
photoshopping photo’s is so overrated..I like the real images better, those I could actually meet on the street.
Although I do know some people with réally smooth skin, but they’re not far in their twenties yet.
Arjans last blog post..True Blood {main theme}
[Reply to this comment]
By Lee on October 6th, 2008 | Reply
The thing which is also annoying is that people can tell that they’ve been airbrushed but if you’re feed that rubbish day in day out then eventually you go numb and start to think people look like that.
It’s any wonder that kids have messed up body images.
[Reply to this comment]
it’s ridiculous this strive for ‘perfection’ that drives the advertising media/womens mags/etc
Beauty should be seen to be so much more than skin deep and air brushed.
Bettinas last blog post..Home-made Projects
[Reply to this comment]
By Lee on October 6th, 2008 | Reply
See the funny thing too is that I’m not even concerned with them only picking pretty people to be on the cover, but why mess with someone who is traditionally attractive in the first place?
It’s silly and weak and empty. Then again I watch Beauty and the Geek
[Reply to this comment]
By Bettina on October 6th, 2008 | Reply
Oh I’ll agree with you there. Thing is, I love seeing people who are natural beauties, without layers of makeup and hours of styling and airbrushing. Sure people naturally look to emphasis beauty, but why fabricate and perfect it?
And I LOVE watching Beauty and the Geek lol
Bettinas last blog post..Home-made Projects
[Reply to this comment]
Reminded me of this. Best Photoshop Mistakes
funny.
Sean
[Reply to this comment]