very neat explanation of how to make people in magazines look better than they actually do

I posed the question because whenever you're printing an image, in any medium, you adjust the colour pretty much everytime. Does simply adjusting for poor lighting or funky shadows count as retouching?

Ok, it's less dramatic:

For yellow, magenta, and cyan, the range is generally+/- 0.02. For black, it is +/- 0.04.

But that can have a big effect depending on the colors. The example I was shown was an ad that had a mostly flat greyish field. In one magazine it was noticeably magenta/purple, in the other, blue. And these were like, Time, the New Yorker, Business Week etc.

It's an issue for everyone, because you can't call the level of, say, magenta like you can a spot color, by Pantone number or the like. If only.

tyra, no?

i wonder how much of the retouching she'd have noticed had they not shown her the before and after shots. vanity, yo.

We realize that pretty instinctually about parts of advertising but are naturally more resistant to it when it comes to renovating humans -- and to be honest I think it would be ridiculously depressing to live in a world where we were all so sophisticated about advertising that we didn't even trust faces to be faces anymore.

NB have any of you read any of the recent stuff about HDTV worries with regard to this stuff? All that new clarify/definition has raised the bar such that facial stuff that wasn't previously evident on television -- pores, moles, scars, etc -- now shows up like a monument on giant plasma widescreen HDTVs, potentially in larger than life size. A lot of actors are pretty spooked by this, particularly when it comes to stuff like talk-show appearances, where you don't get all the good lighting and well-angled shots. I was reading something or other where a TV critic pointed out that this run-of-the-mill "character-building" scar on Brad Whitford's forehead looks, in close-up HD, like a gaping wound.

http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio28.html

although sir mix-a-lot brought quite a few dissenters out of that closet.

I'm not sure this convention is particularly true in general, leave alone for an ass-out thong picture of Kelis from what looks like King or something. If anything I'm surprised they didn't fill her out more than that.

Damn, that is two ILXers to envy on that score.

This happened to me when I saw Batman Begins at the imax. The screen is so huge you can see every little flaw and mark on each actor, to the point where they became grotesque. It was very distracting! I don't think I'd see a regular movie at the imax again.

what about dove's "real women" ads? the first time i saw them, i thought, "those are not the kind of "real women" i see every day," because they're all still gorgeous and i doubt any of them was over a size 12, but i'm sure they've been retouched, etc, so i don't feel quite so bad.

the coolest example of the unretouched woman was when jamie lee curtis did that spread with no makeup in her underwear and showed everyone how imperfect she was.

They were all on Oprah in their underwear over the holidays and still looked exactly like that ad, so I think it's mostly makeup as opposed to hardcore retouching.

on this one, they added to the ass!
http://www.glennferon.com/portfolio1/portfolio02.html

I liked the Shanghai incarnation of this ad campaign the Banterist guy posted:

http://www.banterist.com/archivefiles/images/dove2.jpg

-- tres letraj (boringstandardaddres...), January 11th, 2006 9:39 AM.

I'm sure no one's dog could look that hideous.

Please tell me US sizes are way different to AU's - a size 10 here is someone who weighs 90 pounds soaking wet.