I’m pretty much apathetic in the face of Photoshop. It’s an annoying (and undeniably rampant) practice for sure, but at this point I’m just like, “duh, nobody looks like that.” It’s ridiculous! But if there’s one variety of photo-altering that really, truly baffles me, it’s in the case of beauty advertisements. Are we seriously supposed to look at an ad and say, “Wow, that foundation looks great, I want to try it,” when the model has not only been subjected to hours of professional hair and makeup but has also been Photoshopped to the point of no recognizable human features? Keep reading »
Scanning through magazines is always a really nice way to reduce my over-inflated ego. Typically there are pictures on pictures of beautiful, svelte women and I sit there like “Well…I guess I could start a diet” as I shove another Oreo into my face because YOLO. I mean it’s obvious that all of the pictures have been highly edited to sell whatever product they happen to be advertising, but edited pictures still don’t make a girl feel great. Recently, however, Victoria’s Secret has come under some media scrutiny for heavily manipulating their pictures. Right? Like, they really need to edit those girls – they already look like Barbie dolls. But they do use Photoshop, and a they use it a lot. Erin Heatherton, Victoria’s Secret Model, thinks there’s nothing wrong with adding heavy Photoshop effects to pictures. She thinks it’s about adding “fantasy” to the image.
I was surprised, I guess, to find someone so readily willing to accept that their picture had been drastically altered. I feel like if I were a celebrity and was so excited to pose for like Rolling Stone or Cosmo or something and then saw a picture that was clearly edited, I would feel like I wasn’t good enough. I mean Erin the Victoria’s Secret model is gorgeous, right? Is it really necessary to make her skin tanner, her cleavage more prominent, her abs more defined? How close to perfect are we trying to make these people? Read more…
Usually in advertising we see Photoshop used in ways that are objectionable for the statement they make about women’s body size and skin color: airbrushing is used to slim down thighs, arms and tummies or to lighten skin. But in a photo of Karlie Kloss for Numéro magazine, we see another side of airbrushing — one that gets rid of the model’s deeply protruding ribs. The original image (left) is so jarring that to see the airbrushed image (right) is a literal shock.
Keep reading »
Yesterday morning, I woke up and before getting out of bed, I checked my email on my iPhone and opened up one of the 10 million sale alerts I get from various brands. This one was for Aerie, a sub-brand of American Eagle Outfitters that I love for their affordable bras and undies. The deal was for one of their style of bras, but I was far more interested in the panties the model was wearing, because they were sheer enough in the crotch to reveal a whole lot of vagina. Whoa, visible vagina in my inbox, I thought. Or there should have been. I pinched and zoomed in. What the hell has happened to her vag? Keep reading »
It’s not big news that ads are photoshopped. But every once in a while I see something that’s so completely ridiculous that I have to wonder if the people involved are for real. You have to understand, from far away, I had no idea who the hell those guys were supposed to be, and it’s a giant billboard — it’s the size of the building. I honestly thought that Michael Chiklis on the right was a Pixar creation.
No, this is in no way the worst case of photoshopping ever. I’m not saying that. You might even be thinking, This isn’t a big deal, I wouldn’t have looked twice. But isn’t that the problem? Why aren’t we looking twice? Why aren’t we surprised by these photoshopped images any more? Why are we accepting this? And I’ve noticed that lately, men seem to finally be getting the same crazy photoshop treatment that women get, though I don’t see this as a victory. All it does is perpetuate this stupid cycle of raising standards by depicting all celebrities so flawless, they look computer generated. (Or worse, when the images become so manipulated, they look like other people. I thought that Kim Cattral on the “Sex and the City 2″ poster was Katherine Heigl.) Keep reading »