Since you had so much fun with this in class today...here are the links. Now, go tell all of your friends about retouched photos.
Nine cover stories (Kate, Andy, Britney)
iWANEX Studio
Faith Hill
What do you think? To retouch or not to retouch?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Wow! i think it's so incredibly wrong how they completely change the celebrities by making them look perfect! I undertsdand that they want the people in their magazine to look at their best but I do not agree with them changing the way they truly look. It was fun to see the website today in class and the truth is that I like to know that the perfect image doesn't really exist.. i don't feel so different from celebrities anymore and understand that every person has imperfections! just like i do!
To Photoshop or not to Photoshop... that is the question. To morph the stars into the perfect human specimen ... or to leave them as true pieces of humanity...
From the marketing/advertising side I can see the reasoning for making the stars look perfect... long legs and big arms sell magazines and products.
However from the publics self image perspective it is very wrong. This phenomenon creates a world of perceived imperfection through the eyes of those of us who consume this printed media.
I believe people need to realize that the stars are generally good looking people... but they are not wax figures, they have blemishes and the occasional love handle. So do not try comparing your image to that super edited photo of your favorite celeb on the cover of GQ or People... they are not that perfect.
Give empathy a test drive... Andy Roddick is a fit dude but according to Mens health his arms are not big enough. Frankly i would be a bit offended if i were Andy.
I knew that magazines retouched pictures of celebrities, but I had no idea they went to the extent that they do. I was in awe whenever I saw some of the pictures in class! It is intresting to see the before and after shots of different celebrities to see what they really look like. I understand some retouching, because no one is perfect. But isn't that the point? No one is perfect, so why make all of these celebrities look like something that they're not?
I personally think photos should not be retouched. I have the pleasure of having my wonderful friends put up pictures of me on facebook that I am unable to retouch and I have to deal with it. If we didn't retouch these famous people's photos then maybe men and women would have a better idea of what true beauty is all about.
Well.. I think they look extremely fake, but isn't the community interested in them because they're so "fakely perfect"...? It sells
I vote for retouching! We can't even send untouched pictures to family-we're constantly hiring professionals for weddings, senior pictures, etc. Touched up celebrity photos, to an extent, can be deceiving, but the portrayal creates an entire industry of employment. The "perfect" image also contributes to fueling our economy through advertising and purchasing of labels, gym memberships, makeup, etc. Who wants to see Enquirer material on billboards anyway? I definitely wouldn't want that magazine to "touch up" my photos!
Post a Comment