Wednesday, May 21, 2008

get real



Is retouching so bad? No, but it does get iffy if you title your campaign "Real Beauty". Read some of the debate (nicely summed up) here, but don't miss the great New Yorker article that sparked it off. Potential quote-out-of-context aside, the profile of retoucher Pascal Dangin is compellingly written and reveals the artistry behind making a picture perfect (he works for DAYS to tint a field of grass the perfect green!). Anyway who's ever had a go at reworking photos would know what I mean.

In any case, I think the women (thin, plump, in-between, just like their last campaign) in the campaign (I would LOVE to see the Singaporean edition, but naked older women would be pretty outrageous here, I think) look gorgeous, but attainably so. Their skin is lined and sagged in a way I expect an older woman's would, perhaps smoother and softer than the average person, but it's a SKIN ad so I really didn't expect to see someone covered with spots and freckles. It looks the way I hope my skin will look with proper care.

Guess the I totally fell for the campaign, retouched or not.

2 comments:

enc said...

I used to retouch photos as part of my job, and it is difficult work. I see good and bad and surreal examples of it all the time.

I'm glad there are a few campaigns that use "real" women, but the cynic in me wonders if they, too, are not retouched.

I have to go read that article now.

fashionaddict said...

This one was apparently, as was the previous one. I'm not surprised. What surprises me a bit is that I don't mind either. It's advertising. The last thing in the world to trust.