If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them
In article ,
Rich A wrote: http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/09/tech...hotoshop-woman For all you morons who still labour under the belief they are a "rebel" corporation and not the usual sleazeballs. THAT is all it takes to get people's panties in a bunch?! Get a life, guys - go worry about world hunger or something. Note to CNN: It's not a 'lot of heat" because you say it is. No one takes anything on Twitter seriously. Personally, I think the original model in the ad sold out her entire gender by allowing herself to be used in this way. She set back women's rights at least a decade! She should be hunted down and... given a stern talking to, or something. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them
(Rich A, who dwells in the deepest pit of my kill file, blathered about
the Adobe presentation at yesterday's Apple Event.) Scott Schuckert: THAT is all it takes to get people's panties in a bunch?! Get a life, guys - go worry about world hunger or something. Note to CNN: It's not a 'lot of heat" because you say it is. No one takes anything on Twitter seriously. Personally, I think the original model in the ad sold out her entire gender by allowing herself to be used in this way. She set back women's rights at least a decade! She should be hunted down and... given a stern talking to, or something. DOLTS! Retouching photographs is as old as photography. Drawing and painting idealized faces is as old as art. Who thinks that da Vinci recreated exactly what he saw when he painted the Mona Lisa? The present instance was a fashion photograph (simulated ad for lipstick, apparently). When you're selling fashion, whether to men or to women, you're selling an ideal. That ideal does not include blemishes and other defects. It doesn't include wrinkled old men or women, the infirm, or the deformed--it's not charity-poster art. The client gets what s/he demands and a photographer who has a problem with that needs to find a new profession. I had better not learn that any of the complainers wear anything but ragged sackcloth or that any of them use makeup or wear jewelry. -- I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that you will say in your entire life. usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them
| DOLTS! Retouching photographs is as old as photography. Drawing and
| painting idealized faces is as old as art. Who thinks that da Vinci | recreated exactly what he saw when he painted the Mona Lisa? | ?? I'm surprised that people are calling this sexism. Smiles are generally more attractive, but not necessarily sexually attractive. (The typical come hither look is more likely to be one of focused lust. Intense, smoldering stare.) If people want to complain it should be about the assumption that all images are, or should be, selling something. But Da Vinci? Do you really think he was trying to make the woman beautiful? First of all, he didn't. Second, that would be a trite motive. Third, the woman was a model. There's no reason he should necessarily be trying to reproduce her face as he sees it. (Though, frankly, I've never seen anything profound in the smile of Mona Lisa. It looks to me like garden variety, self-conscious vanity: She's smiling with subtle satisfaction at being looked at. The feminine mystique, maybe? That seems like a generous interpretation.) | The present instance was a fashion photograph (simulated ad for | lipstick, apparently). When you're selling fashion, whether to men or | to women, you're selling an ideal. I'm not sure your logic holds up. Have you looked at fashion photos lately? Many are hollow-cheeked, with desolate expressions, as though they just escaped a war zone and haven't eaten for a week... but they hardly care because their humanity has been traumatized out of them. That might represent a teenage wish to not care what other people think. Maybe that's an ideal of sorts. But it's a long way from smiling. (And fashion photos of women are meant to appeal to women, not men.) The young women of high fashion are notably not attractive. They usually have very angular jaws and cheeks, but often to an absurd degree -- not necessarily attractive. Their bodies are usually anorectic and the clothes they're draped in are usually calculatedly ugly. When I look at those photos I don't want to have sex with them. I want to say s omething to cheer them up, then feed them. (Even Victorias Secret models have child-like bodies. Which is why they get away with being nearly naked: They're not very sexy.) Fashion photography is modern art at it's worst: Reactionary provocation masquerading as original creativity. "I'm an artist. Therefore if I display a moldy piece of bread and call it art then it is art." Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea of someone putting a little smile on one of those high fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer up such a wet towel? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote:
snip Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea of someone putting a little smile on one of those high fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer up such a wet towel? I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.) -- PeterN |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them
| I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.)
| Well, I guess if you thought they were women then it's not for me to tell you otherwise. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
On 9/11/2015 6:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.) | Well, I guess if you thought they were women then it's not for me to tell you otherwise. Autoerotic would have been a better word. -- PeterN |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote:
On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote: snip Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea of someone putting a little smile on one of those high fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer up such a wet towel? I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.) Inflatible sex dolls? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
On 9/14/2015 4:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote: On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote: snip Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea of someone putting a little smile on one of those high fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer up such a wet towel? I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.) Inflatible sex dolls? Somehow I'm thinking "Airplane!" autopilot... == Later... Ron C -- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means moremoney for them
On 9/14/2015 10:27 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 9/14/2015 4:39 PM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2015-09-11 18:17, PeterN wrote: On 9/10/2015 10:42 AM, Mayayana wrote: snip Anyone who doubts that fashion models are unattractive need only look at a "men's magazine". The models will all be curvey, not anorectic. So personally I like the idea of someone putting a little smile on one of those high fashion, sullen stares. Who wouldn't want to try to cheer up such a wet towel? I used to represent some women who were autoerectic. (to coin a word.) Inflatible sex dolls? Somehow I'm thinking "Airplane!" autopilot... I will not discuss membership in the mile high club. -- PeterN |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple photoshops smile on woman's face because it means more money for them | Savageduck[_3_] | Digital Photography | 3 | September 15th 15 03:16 PM |
World globe mixed with cotton ball in Photoshops | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | November 3rd 07 04:31 PM |
ISO setting - what it really means ? | Gautam Majumdar | Digital Photography | 0 | January 4th 05 08:01 AM |
What does DSC and P in P-10 and P-100 means? | zxcvar | Digital Photography | 2 | November 27th 04 10:29 PM |
What does Dx, Ls means | Ron Baird | Digital Photography | 1 | June 24th 04 07:15 PM |