I saw this article I thought some of you might be interested.

Has'nt retouching on actors and actresses been going on since the 1930's?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/02/nmags102.xml

I think magazines should start publishing the untouched RAW's straight from the camera then we can all see how bad all these celbrities really look maybe they would like that better.

OMG...the world is ugly enough, now they want to take away our pretty pix! :)

not me.....i like my job, and like cashing my check even better.

i think the telegraph was blowing smoke up someones you know what !

the fashion mags would loose readership and Vogue would be out of fashion in five minutes .

Think Mariah or Madonna without airbrushing for PR stakes ? when hell freezes over .

Lets face it people like an airbrushed image and without the images the products don't sell .

Billboards without an image ....
Magazine covers without a bright face with sparkling eyes

Fat chance!

(no pun intended)

thats my point !

thats like Pammy without implants ....it will never happen

Airbrush is a bad word and should be censored here. Where are the politeness police when you need them?

Hey I agree with you Ant its the name of the article and it goes further to prove how little these hacks know using that term.

"Prof Janet Treasure, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said yesterday that people's brains could be permanently altered in the process, making them more susceptible to other addictions."

Well, that may explain some of Benny's after work, uh, problems.

Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect?

http://www.ppa.co.uk/cgi-bin/go.pl/news/article.html?uid=12486

PPA working group on digital enhancements

03 Apr 2008

PPA is setting up a working group on the use of digital enhancements in fashion photography following the Baroness Kingsmill report on model health. The only recommendation concerning the magazine sector was the suggestion of a voluntary code on the use of digital technology to adjust body shape.

Using digital technology to adjust images is a widely used technique across all media. Uses vary from correcting errant hair, smudged lipstick or loose threads, to smoothing out clothes and changing the colour of clothing.

PPA has been contacted by the British Fashion Council (BFC) who said that digital adjustment was outside of its remit, but believed it formed part of ‘the wider issue of model health.’ As this is a complex issue and there is no pre-determined consensus across the industry, PPA is currently canvassing views. PPA looks forward to developing discussions with both the BFC as well as editors within the magazine sector.

Details from Toby Hicks at PPA on 020 7400 7528.


Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect? No,of course not. We all know that airbrushing is bad for "Model Health". :bigthmb:

Rô

Seriously, though, I just can't see any logic in this.

If there was no retouching then all models would have to be perfect - and skinny.
With retouching, you can fix things that are out of place, and thin parts where necessary.

So, isn't retouching, really, protecting the models?

Rô

they're gonna stop the retouching to help with the health issues for the models, physically and mentally......but they'll compensate for the lack of retouching with more blow and slim cigarettes.

I think magazines should start publishing the untouched RAW's straight from the camera then we can all see how bad all these celbrities really look maybe they would like that better.

No need whilst there is a big rash of tabloid rags out there that go out of their way to 'reverse retouch' celebs to make them appear unrealistically hideous... Hmmm, I wonder this is to be included in this... er... 'airbrush ban'.

"Prof Janet Treasure, of the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London, said yesterday that people's brains could be permanently altered in the process, making them more susceptible to other addictions."

Well, that may explain some of Benny's after work, uh, problems.

Hey, British friends, is that Telegraph as much of a rag as I suspect?

Quite the opposite, the Telegraph is one of the more respected newspapers although that doesn't count for a great deal.

Lets be realistic here, the term 'airbrushing' is only bad because people associate it with the deceit of modern day publishing even though everyone who reads these magazines knows that they have had work done. Further more, where does it stop. Are we saying that a woman wearing make up is an act also done with the intention to deceive. Of course it is!

To conclude, I would suspect that most of the general public are only jealous because their own photographs aren't retouched professionally, and that given the choice they would have them done.

The whole thing smacks of sour grapes and jealousy. There you go, I've said it now. Feel much better.

To conclude, I would suspect that most of the general public are only jealous because their own photographs aren't retouched professionally, and that given the choice they would have them done.



You know, speaking of jealousy, I'm guessing that might be the Telegraph's, and all other newspaper's problem here. The hard news publishers have clamped down and ANY type of photo retouching outside of simple CC, and would probably love to see the rest of the world follow suit, which, of course, won't happen. And they're probably all a bit cranky, too, because their industry is dying a quick death all around them, and job prospects look bleak.

Or maybe they feel that if they protest loud enough, no one will suspect that they do it themselves. Knowing the paper, I would doubt they did it to major news stories, however, there weekend supplements are full of beautiful people. Is it possible that these aren't retouched, but that they own a cellar full of perfects.

Seems to me the "British Fashion Council (BFC)" is pointing the finger at others when they should be looking in the mirror.

Fashionable body shapes have changed through the ages....
- a few centuries ago the "plumper" the better;
- a century or so ago women were extracting ribs to be able to thin their waists to the fashionable outline;
- along comes "Twiggy" and women wanted to be all flat;
- fast forward, and now women want to be "top-heavy"

Who is to "blame" for all that?

The pushing and pulling tricks of the retouchers are not the cause of changing silhouettes, they are just are symptom of an unquiet society.

Ok, now I feel better too. :bigthmb:

Rô

I also heard some actors and actresses are complaining about HD televison as it brings out more of there flaws.

I also heard some actors and actresses are complaining about HD televison as it brings out more of there flaws.

hmmmm....well, sort of in the same vein (haha, get it?), HD is the first "evolution" in video technology that has not increased sales of video porn. Seems that even viewers don't want to watch that in high detail at all.