Airbrushing hotties.
Paula held up the magazine cover of Cosmo a couple of days ago and asked for my opinion of the woman on the front. I said she might have been attractive at one point, but now she looked like she'd been chiselled out of granite by an untrained monkey and airbrushed by a blind man.
Women on the covers of magazines do seem to be suffering from the over-zealous use of photoshop at the moment. The woman on the front of my FHM last month is fine inside the mag, but on the cover she looks almost plastic.
Then there are some mags which still seem to think that minor blemish removal is fine, but wholesale airbrushing is out of the question. This month's Shape magazine is a good example. I noticed it on top of Paula's stack of magazines this morning. The girl on the front of there is a total hottie and seems to be devoid of all but the most minor retouching. I wonder if its because she looks like a normal person? A hint of a tummy, breastages that aren't the size of the Hindenberg (and consequently don't have the associated Zeppelin-like gravity-defying properties) and a pretty face. The woman on Cosmo on the other hand is just butt-ugly, and that's offensive to butts. They've tried to glam her up either by physically using spackle, or by spending hours messing around in photoshop. The result - well I think I just threw up in mouth a little bit. Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this either. Whilst searching for the cover, I came across another blog entry saying the same thing at go fug yourself.
See for yourself what I'm talking about. Cosmo-thing looks like a cross between Manimal and a block of sculptor's clay :
Women on the covers of magazines do seem to be suffering from the over-zealous use of photoshop at the moment. The woman on the front of my FHM last month is fine inside the mag, but on the cover she looks almost plastic.
Then there are some mags which still seem to think that minor blemish removal is fine, but wholesale airbrushing is out of the question. This month's Shape magazine is a good example. I noticed it on top of Paula's stack of magazines this morning. The girl on the front of there is a total hottie and seems to be devoid of all but the most minor retouching. I wonder if its because she looks like a normal person? A hint of a tummy, breastages that aren't the size of the Hindenberg (and consequently don't have the associated Zeppelin-like gravity-defying properties) and a pretty face. The woman on Cosmo on the other hand is just butt-ugly, and that's offensive to butts. They've tried to glam her up either by physically using spackle, or by spending hours messing around in photoshop. The result - well I think I just threw up in mouth a little bit. Seems I'm not the only one who thinks this either. Whilst searching for the cover, I came across another blog entry saying the same thing at go fug yourself.
See for yourself what I'm talking about. Cosmo-thing looks like a cross between Manimal and a block of sculptor's clay :
Comments