Girls should see this.
21:14 Wednesday 15 Feb 06
That’s picking on girls which could be unfair but the portrayal (for me) of the absolutely perfect girl seems to be more prevalent. Certainly with my two and the magazines they get there is this ‘perfection’ ideal which is pushed. So this link to FluidEffect wasn’t just interesting - more like a “Kids really should know the magic that is used”. Adults too I suppose … Agree to the copyright thing, and when you are in click the before/after. When a chosen image is fully loaded click and hold the ‘Before’ link. Some changes are large (thighs!) but others are very subtle indeed.
(src: Malcom’s Page)
More: Images
--
Read (871)
1
I can’t tell you how much better looking through all those has made me feel! *grin*
Now, where’s my airbrush…
21:46 Wednesday 15 Feb 06
2
Have a look here too : http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/index.html
Takes a wee while to load the other image, just move the mouse off and on the image to see the difference.
21:49 Wednesday 15 Feb 06
3
It’s weird how what can be attractive women are rendered into dolls.
Ick.
22:46 Wednesday 15 Feb 06
4
It’s about usage and abuse really isn’t it?
for example this image makes sense to be retouched - it emphasises the look they were going for. It just improves the image. Ditto this image, as the photographer produced a godawful photo.
whereas something like this makes the person look artificial and nasty.
13:46 Thursday 16 Feb 06
5
I kinda agree about the first one……but the other two? Take a better photo then! The second one - once retouched - bears almost no resemblance to the original, it could easily be someone else. And to my mind, the weirdest thing about the last one is the hairline.
Re-touching has it’s place - hey, even I’ve been known to do it to the odd photo - to remove that badly timed spot, the red-eye, whatever. However, there should be limits. The abusive element here is holding these images up as ideals for us to aspire too….when even that “ideal” is being faked.
19:28 Thursday 16 Feb 06