Eww. There is something wrong when you look at a picture of one of the most beautiful women in the world and think that a computer generated image is still more attractive than an actual human body.
Also changing the proportions of her legs like that is bizarre, do they not realize she would have trouble walking with those proportions?
I cannot begin to tell you how important this message is to get across. Now more than ever we are seeing girls -and now even boys- hating the way they look at younger and younger ages. Of course, as we all already know… one of the biggest contributors to our diminishing self love is the media (surprise, surprise). We are bombarded by thousands of advertisements every single day regarding improvements in the way we look. This only makes us feel even more inadequate when all the gimmicks and products don’t give us the results we were SHOWN. The absolute biggest problem with people feeling like shit about themselves nowadays is NOT because of how frequently we see these ads, or how many products are on the market; its the WAY we are lead to believe a false reality because it truly LOOKS attainable.
This photo shows this. I’m 15 and i muck about with photoshop in my spare time, and i managed to make a natural-looking curvy girl look like a ‘perfect’, ‘sexy’ hourglass with smooth skin and a tiny waist in under 30 minutes. Yes, if you saw that in a magazine you’d know straight away that it was ‘edited’ but, would you immediately think the reality was THAT FAR OFF? I sure wouldn’t. Professional image editors have years of experience and get to sit at the editing desk for hours and even days on end with a single picture.
The photo above was from a ‘curvy kate’ photo shoot - and there would’ve been just as much professional lighting and makeup going on as any other high fashion shoot. The only difference? When it goes back to the editing room, the girls are most likely lightly airbrushed but not significantly altered in any way. You can see the lumps and bumps and curves that 95% of the female population have.
Even though the lingerie may have been more marketable on a stick with huge boobs, your target audience are not sticks with huge boobs. A product will always be more satisfying and pleasing to people when they don’t have to compete with -an edited- Miranda Kerr in the size 4 dress that they’re trying on in a size 12.
So, Ask yourself next time you feel down about someone/something you saw on tv or in a magazine ‘is this real or are they only trying to sell me something?’
This is terrible. She’s beautiful to begin with. Why does her skin have to be silky smooth? Her boobs pushed up? They even took off her sock in the ‘enhanced’ one. Her stomach. Her fingers. Her moles are removed from her neck. They even made he forehead smaller on the right. Lines removed from her underarm. Is it so bad not to be perfect?
i stared at this for like 20 minutes
They even made her finger nails show…
I think its important for everyone to see this, especially young girls and women. The images that the media feed us aren’t the truth. Nobody is perfect. Stop comparing yourself.
it just makes me sad because humans are so pretty and unique, yet the image of humans has been destroyed by humans
this is heartbreaking.
Gosh. I’m jealous even of the original one let alone the Photoshop version.
When my daughter first showed signs of hating herself, I got out photoshop. We went and found an image of her choosing, of a woman. I spent the next two hours showing her just how easy it was to alter this woman. I changed her hair, whitened her teeth, made her thinner. I erased her blemishes and even made her taller while my daughter sat there aghast. At the end of it she loudly said - ” THAT’S NOT FAIR!”
I told her that damn near every image she saw of people in magazines, on television, etc, was altered like this, and that she should never compare herself to that, because even supermodels don’t look like supermodels.
I wish I could do that for every child. I wish it was a mandatory class in school.
^ that commentary though.
Lea and Dianna: Real bodies vs. their Photoshopped counterparts
Here’s a comparison of two photos of Lea and Dianna: one was the photo taken of them in the studio, and the other the final Photoshopped photo scanned from a magazine.
Lea, Glamour,December 2011:
- Eye makeup was adjusted
- Eyebrows were trimmed
- Some skin spots removed
- Wrinkles on nose removed
- Wrinkles on wrists removed
- Tone added to legs and arms
- Breasts accentuated
- Waist and back made dramatically smaller
Dianna, Cosmopolitan,September 2011:
- Wrinkles from dress removed
- Elbow has been reshaped
- Mouth tension erased
- Armpits are smoother
- Arms are skinnier and more toned
- Collarbones less noticeable
- Nose reshaped
- Breasts augmented
- Stomach made smaller (it’s cropped out from this picture, but her waistline is at least 3 inches smaller)
post coming with feelings about this
I… I really love that people are posting a lot more of these before/after shots, but then it makes me so fucking sad
these women are gorgeous and it’s still not enough
Fuck these magazines. Fuck the magazines that are targeted TOWARD women BY women and pull this shit.
You are EVIL.
Jennifer Lawrence is so beautiful, she has a great body that she should be proud of! I think she looks much better un-photoshopped. I’m sure you all agree.
Oh god, what did they DO to her?! Poor bb!
They fucked up with that shit.
What a fucking horrible thing to do for women’s self esteem round the world. My body type is pretty close to the un-photoshopped Jennifer, and now it’s like, EW, THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, LET’S JUST SLICE OFF THAT FAT, SUCK IN THAT TUMMY, TUCK THOSE THIGHS, DE-PUFF THOSE CHEEKS, SNIP THOSE WASHERWOMAN ARMS.
Fuck you, beauty standards. FUCK YOU.
An old Photoshop pic of mine. <3 George
The clothier H&M is in the news this week and Craita, Ann C., and Marjukka O. all sent in links to the story. It turns out that they are using a mannequin to display their clothes. Nothing new here. Except that the mannequins are appearing on their website (instead of their brick-and-mortar stores) and they are photoshopping heads of real models onto the figure and changing the skin color, giving it the illusion of being a real person.
This is actually just…appalling. That they are getting away with this.
The photographs of celebrities and models in fashion advertisements and magazines are routinely buffed with a helping of digital polish. The retouching can be slight — colors brightened, a stray hair put in place, a pimple healed. Or it can be drastic — shedding 10 or 20 pounds, adding a few inches in height and erasing all wrinkles and blemishes, done using Adobe’s Photoshop software, the photo retoucher’s magic wand.
“Fix one thing, then another and pretty soon you end up with Barbie,” said Hany Farid, a professor of computer science and a digital forensics expert at Dartmouth.
And that is a problem, feminist legislators in France, Britain and Norway say, and they want digitally altered photos to be labeled. In June, the American Medical Association adopted a policy on body image and advertising that urged advertisers and others to “discourage the altering of photographs in a manner that could promote unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image.”
Dr. Farid said he became intrigued by the problem after reading about the photo-labeling proposals in Europe. Categorizing photos as either altered or not altered seemed too blunt an approach, he said.
Dr. Farid and Eric Kee, a Ph.D. student in computer science at Dartmouth, are proposing a software tool for measuring how much fashion and beauty photos have been altered, a 1-to-5 scale that distinguishes the infinitesimal from the fantastic. Their research is being published this week in a scholarly journal, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Their work is intended as a technological step to address concerns about the prevalence of highly idealized and digitally edited images in advertising and fashion magazines. Such images, research suggests, contribute to eating disorders and anxiety about body types, especially among young women.
The Dartmouth research, said Seth Matlins, a former talent agent and marketing executive, could be “hugely important” as a tool for objectively measuring the degree to which photos have been altered. He and his wife, Eva Matlins, the founders of a women’s online magazine, Off Our Chests, are trying to gain support for legislation in America. Their proposal, the Self-Esteem Act, would require photos that have been “meaningfully changed” to be labeled.
As a former graphic design major, I concur that this or other proactive steps need to be taken. Retouching has gotten absolutely out of control and is actually harming our youth. I’m not having it.