|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:57 pm
I saw this commercial (and I've seen others similar to it before) Where they take a picture of an already pretty girl then airbrush, tweak, shrink, enlarge, and stretch parts of her to make her look "more beautiful" and super modely. The process always interested me. A few years ago I took a photo of my sister in her swimsuit and tweaked it (badly I might add) so she looked much thinner. Next thing I know she's on a diet with a printout on the fridge. Needless to say I trashed that photo pretty quickly. I saw the commercial again a few days ago and got curious. Not so much about the diffrence of appearence, as the difference in my skills to pull something like that off now. Learning my lesson from doing that to anyone else's photo I had on hand I used a photo of myself. stare I wish I hadn't.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:07 pm
eh. i hate the media of today. girls are always seen as stick figures and seriously that is not right. it's awful that our society allows people to do that, to make us think that what is beautiful is some fake image. i hope that girls and women can realize that they should be happy with themselves no matter how they look. we need to build our confidence, not wallow in a pool of emptiness. confused
i'm glad i have a lack of photoshop skills. i don't think i could ever touch up a photo of myself like that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
Time-traveling Marshmallow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:14 am
Yeah, making it was kinda fun, but then flipping between the images. Man, it'll kill you quick. I just wish more girls realized just how much of what they see in magazines has been tweaked like that and how long the models and celebreties they look up to spend in makeup (lots of makeup) to look like they do. They may very well be beautiful, but they're not nearly as "perfect" looking as they're often made out to be. Ooh, I found the exact commercial I was talking about: http://seehere.blogspot.com/2006/08/celebrities-without-makeup.htmlThere's a whole bunch of celebrity pictures comparing them with and witout makeup first, but after the photos and before all the people start posting responses is where you can watch the video. I gotta say though, the make-up-less photos on this site seem unfair to me. I'd rather see an honest snap shot of the person without makeup, like the type you'd take playing around with friends on a day to the beach or at a birthday party - normal pictures of normal people who know your about to snap a photo, if your going to do this kind of comparison. Instead they've got shots intentionally taken to make them look at their worst with sluggy expressions or wide open mouths like they're about to yawn, or looking psychotic.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:59 am
and that's why supermodels suck....
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:13 am
that would seriously mess you up I have a hard enough time looking at me in pictures taken Fall '06, a bit over a year ago
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:32 pm
I can use Photoshop, but I can't do that. Not that I'd try.
I honestly like how I look, but at the same time my metabolism is so speedy that I can eat junk and still weigh very little. That'll wear off eventually, my mom tells me.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:24 pm
enjoy that while you can! xd I wasn't lucky enough to get the good metabolism. At least on the photoshopped picture most of the things that I did are things that I could actually do. The only thing that I could never really change is that I made my neck longer. I always hated having such a short neck. But alas...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:01 pm
The only things I really dislike about how I look will either change or go away as I age. Like my skin clearing up.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:49 pm
eek Wow, some of those people are seriously not that good looking. I mean, they look even older than what they really are!!
I'm not completely satisfied with the way I look. But then again, neither are most people. And I feel pretty good about myself because I've been doing a serious effort to eat the right way and I've lost a lot of weight in the past year biggrin
I should start exercising xd
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:04 am
the only thing I would change is my skin really, its a genetic condition that never cleared up wtih age, no meds help wtih it. But i'm told that coconut oil can help wtih it, the best of any of the stuff, so I'm trying it
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:55 pm
I need to exercise. I found out just how weak I am today pulling my suitcase through a two-foot snow drift. sweatdrop
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:36 pm
The standards women have to meet to be beautiful are ridiculous. You know, in the Middle Ages women had to be pretty chunky to be considered beautiful, since fat meant more food and therefore healthier. Interesting how much it has changed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:57 pm
They also took hemlock to make themselves paler. Hemlock is a poison.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:09 pm
It is pretty sick that we choose to look up to women who probably don't eat what they should and have a hectic schedule and probably take stimulants ( legal or otherwise ) to keep their energy up. Not to mention all the airbrushing that is done to a magazine picture before its put into circulation.
I too would rather look up to someone who isn't airbrushed and looking like some stick figure drawn by a 4 year old. I like people for who they are, and not what they look like. Also personality is a big factor.
As for the hemlock? I believe in the Victorian Era, arsenic was the poison of choice to keep you looking pale and beautiful and thin since it made you sick.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:57 pm
Maybe both. They'd dip a thin stick into it and lick that. xp
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|