{ Sunday, August 10, 2003 }
See before and after images of photo retouching (and another one here), and understand why the women in magazines look the way they do. Make sure you click on the sidebar too. Astonishing, isn't it? (This guy is really good. Look at this sneaker).
These magazine photo demystifications are really useful. See also the great before and after photographs of Jamie Lee Curtis from the September 2002 issue of More magazine.
LINK | 12:30 AM | TB
Yikes. That's amazing. And rather depressing.
I really prefer the real girls. Flaws are personal; I'd rather have the sense of making a real connection with someone than see some generic post-retouch standard of "beauty".
Dinah | August 10, 2003 10:21 AMIt would seem as if the "before" pictures are also retouched in the opposite direction.
Jeremy | August 11, 2003 9:09 AMWhy am I not surprised that the "opposite direction" comment came from a man?
aldahlia | August 11, 2003 10:23 PMThanks for posting that, Caterina. It's a real eye-opener.
menuette | August 12, 2003 2:50 PMi amlooking for women change descussion
samir merabet | February 28, 2004 3:15 AM{ Post a comment }
Wow -- retouching looks a lot like reconstructed deathmasks on corpses, whereas the original photographs -- the ones with hair, wrinkles, uneven skin tone -- the women look much more erotic. (Wow, esp the one in the bikini -- she is a beautiful woman!)
It would have been even more interesting to see the original photographs of the women without makeup.
No wonder so many women feel like they are never good enough.
Susan | August 10, 2003 5:25 AM