![]() It’s possible the editor was just trying to even out his or her work after reducing the puffiness around her eyes but it still seems a little questionable. Of course, we’ve seen worse examples of skin lightening (see Beyoncé above) but this one is just as troubling. Puffiness under her eyes has been reduced but what troubles me is that it also seems as if her complexion has been ‘lightened’. In this one, we can obviously see what has been changed with Eva Mendez. Eva Mendes Before Photoshop (left) and After Photoshop (right) Eva Mendez ![]() After an apology, the controversy died down but that hasn’t stopped the same thing from happening time and time again. Making her skin lighter does not make her more beautiful in the least. When the photo on the right popped up on newsstands, it didn’t take long for the connection to the photo on the left to be discovered and then the outrage began. How in the world is this considered acceptable? Well, to many it isn’t. Beyonce Before Photoshop (left) and After Photoshop (right) Beyoncé Normally, I’d let it go after the pictures were removed and the apology was issued by Ann Taylor is notorious for just this sort of thing which makes the apology feel a little hollow. After this little “mistake” was discovered, the photo was removed from Ann Taylor’s website and an apology was issued. In what world does this beautiful model need to be made thinner? She’s absolutely gorgeous and she was already very thin. ![]() The backlash against fashion powerhouse Ann Taylor was fast and immediate when this Photoshop monstrosity was discovered. Ann Taylor Model Before Photoshop (left) and After Photoshop (right) Ann Taylor Model ![]() While I don’t necessarily think this photo needed retouching, I think the editor did a great job, letting some of Angelina’s natural beauty shine through and only touching up some slight imperfections. Here, the editors just really seem to have focused on brightening up Angelina’s complexion, darkening her makeup and cleaning up her eyes a little bit. I’ve long believed Angelina is one of the most beautiful women in the world – with or without Photoshop. She’s got great skin, gorgeous bone structure and features that are envied all over the world. Angelina Jolie Before Photoshop (left) and After Photoshop (right) Angelina JolieĪngelina Jolie is a naturally beautiful woman. In my honest opinion, the before photo didn’t really need that much touching up but I’d say the editors did a decent job or it all the same. She looks great it the before picture and great in the after picture. Can you imagine if, over night, all of your favorite Hollywood stars suddenly turned ugly - turned real? Perhaps, then, a ban on photoshopping in the cosmetics industry is a good starting point to slowly and safely bring us back to reality.Alicia Silverstone Before Photoshop (left) and After Photoshop (right) Alicia SilverstoneĪlicia Silverstone’s before and after Photoshop pictures aren’t really all that bad, are they? It basically just looks like they’ve brightened up her skin and made it look a little smoother while adding a little bit of makeup, or at least darkening it. There is a reason that digital manipulation and post production is so prevalent, after all - and indeed, it could even be argued that non-manipulated images now look ugly to our eyes. The underlying problem, of course, is that humans are incredibly sensitive to visual stimuli - and multiple trillion-dollar industries, including advertising, cosmetics, movies, and TV, all stand to gain by making their products look more appealing. Will Burger King have to replace those impossibly juicy burgers that hang above the counter with something altogether less plastic and more real? What about those video game ads that don’t feature actual gameplay - and have tiny-font warnings to that effect - will they be banned too? Extrapolating outwards, what about photographers who photoshop their work? Or people who photoshop themselves before placing an image on a dating website? Where does this leave other forms of advertising? The human face (and the multi-billion-dollar cosmetics industry) is obviously a touchy subject, but looking at the bigger picture, almost all television, film, and print advertising uses a combination of “professional styling” and post production to make something look better than it actually is. In other words, it sounds like Photoshop is the straw that broke the camel’s back. Citing a similar situation in the UK, where ads featuring very enhanced versions of Julia Roberts (pictured above) and Christy Turlington were banned, the NAD questions whether photoshopping is necessary when “professional styling, make-up, photography and the product’s inherent covering and smoothing nature” are already at use. So far, so sensible - but some further words from the NAD ruling pose some tricky questions about the continued use of any post production in advertising.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |