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

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (107 of them)

View Previous Page...

it's kind of hilarious that they made her look thinner but made her butt BIGGER!

― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:55 (eighteen years ago) link

How on earth is that hilarious?

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Feron's site is frustrating as it seems he could cover 90% of the retouching by learning to light the scene.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:04 (eighteen years ago) link

conventional attractiveness = make the butt smaller

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

― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:04 (eighteen years ago) link

That's assuming he's the photographer as well as the retoucher - if the magazines are hiring people that incompetent, then I should quit school right now and start sucking cock for editorial jobs. I can fake being legit.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:05 (eighteen years ago) link

haha, I just noticed Kenan fulfilled my wish. Completely hypnotic.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:07 (eighteen years ago) link

Un peu de beaute plastique pour effacer nos cernes
De plaisir chimique pour nos cerveaux trop ternes
Que nos vies aient l'air d'un film parfait

― S. (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:10 (eighteen years ago) link

conventional attractiveness = make the butt smaller

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.

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:28 (eighteen years ago) link

They kind of just rounded it out a bit more.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 06:36 (eighteen years ago) link

I met Kelis and I can tell you, that girl needs no retouching!

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

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:19 (eighteen years ago) link

i can't wait until lynn's 16. etc.

― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:23 (eighteen years ago) link

(way up x-post)No it wasn't tyra banks, it was a woman on a UPN show.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:52 (eighteen years ago) link

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

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.

― Lars and Jagger (Ex Leon), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:59 (eighteen years ago) link

The HDTV thing is funny, the actress that ALWAYS gets trotted out in the "HDTV will ruin careers" discussion is Cameron Diaz, who looks like Bryan Adams in hi def apparently. It's like, christ, people, 90% of us would have no fucking clue just how awful her skin is if you'd all stop telling us, it is, just wait and SEE when you can afford a ten trillion dollar tv!

― Allyzay must fight Zolton herself. (allyzay), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Ha, it's actually some big plan for selling more HD televisions! You're not just buying clearer, more vivid color displays -- you're buying a ticket into a secret world of smug superiority and celebrity schadenfreude!

― nabiscothingy, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:23 (eighteen years ago) link

CD has awful skin. So does Amy Sm4rt. It broke my heart when I found that last one out...

― Jimmy Mod (I myself am lethal at 100 -110dB) (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:34 (eighteen years ago) link

don't they know about Proactive?

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:41 (eighteen years ago) link

the problem in cd's case is supposed to be compounded by bad scarring. i don't think proactiv takes care of that.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 15:43 (eighteen years ago) link

The other thing is that apart from celebrity-spokespeople types, ads aren't ever claiming to depict a "real person," so theoretically there's nothing stranger about retouching faces than there is about retouching the sunsets behind them, or whatever.

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.

― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:11 (eighteen years ago) link

Did it show her male genitalia?

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link

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.

― Dan (Also The Largest Woman I Think Is A 10) Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:29 (eighteen years ago) link

oprah's makeup artist could make my dog look like julia roberts!

― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:39 (eighteen years ago) link

Funny how they changed the girl's features, but didn't touch the dude.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:40 (eighteen years ago) link

i would have lowered the waistband on his jeans... looking a bit urkelish. well, like stephan urkelle, not steve urkel.

― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 22:45 (eighteen years ago) link

conventional attractiveness = make the butt smaller

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

― tres letraj (tehresa), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:03 (eighteen years ago) link

four months pass...

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

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

― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 5 June 2006 21:07 (seventeen years ago) link

My cat is bigger than those girls!

― Abbott (Abbott), Monday, 5 June 2006 21:07 (seventeen years ago) link

oprah's makeup artist could make my dog look like julia roberts!

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

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

― S- (sgh), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 00:45 (seventeen years ago) link

Also The Largest Woman I Think Is A 10

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

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 05:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha ha, we were taught actual proper Heat Magazine modelling tricks on Sunday as to how to look better in magazines. It's all about the angle of your upper torso to your neck. and bloody uncomfortable to stand like that, too.

― harmonic generator, haircuts are for losers (kate), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 08:27 (seventeen years ago) link

US sizes are very, very different from AU's.

― Allyzay Rofflesbot (allyzay), Tuesday, 6 June 2006 13:44 (seventeen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.