- re·touch
- Improve or repair (a painting, a photograph, makeup, etc.) by making slight additions or alterations
verb /rēˈtəCH/ retouched, past participle; retouched, past tense; retouches, 3rd person singular present; retouching, present participle |
- For anyone who's ever opened their eyes to a magazine, they would've closed the magazine a little bit less self confident.
- The main purpose of fashion magazines, is to well, showcase fashion on beautiful people, with flawless bodies and faces.
Her long, skinny legs, hourglass shape figure, the just-the-right-size boobs, and her flawless, blemish-free face?
ALL FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE.
If teenagers like Lana [ForeverGorgeous] and Nika [Princess_Kiara1] can make stunning digital stardoll bodies, think about what adults who went through a uni course about this stuff can do.
Her legs and arms are probably made longer, her body shrunken inwards, and that girl must've been using exfoliator since she was 11 to get skin like that!
However, with pictures like this growing more and more beautiful, yet fake in almost every magazine,
it was beginning to make people seriously doubt their own body, and it shot down their self-esteem and confidence.
This was sort of a buzzkill for magazines, so they decided to do something new.
No Retouch Photos
This is self-explanatory, but for the slow ones, it means that the photo hasn't been altered in any way, it went straight from the camera, to print.
Many people world-wide applauded this, as it showed how models and celebrities also have less-than-flattering bodies and faces, and they're just like us.
However, some people are against this, saying that models still look beautiful in the pictures, even without any retouching, and it makes people think,
"That's exactly how she looks in real-life, why can't I look that beautiful?"
Often, the models are covered in make-up, wear clothes that cover their imperfections, or even small things like a play of light can distort their figure.
Above are two covers of well-known Australian magazines, who have complete, no-retouched covers.
These two covers both follow the same basis, same plan, but make you feel completely different.
The cover on the left shows a close-up of Sarah Murdoch [39], it you can see obvious wrinkles, flaws and blemishes, just like the average 30-something woman would have.
This cover, in my opinion, makes females think that if a top model like her has flaws, it's okay if I do too.
The cover on the right shows Jennifer Hawkins [27], is the model for a full-body no retouching photo,
and honestly, this cover just makes me feel like crap.
Her body is still flawless, apart from a stretch mark or bulge here and there, and her skin is just perfect.
All in all,
retouched photos can create unrealistic impressions of bodies and goals and produce low self-esteem which may result into more serious matters like depression, but it also shows that it's just fake, and nobody looks that perfect.
Non Retouched photos can show that other people have flaws too, nobody's perfect, but it can also lower self-esteem.
So the question is, are you for or against No Retouch Photos?
Let me know in the comments
x
3 comments:
no-retouched ones look just as good as the edited ones!
isnt fashion supposed to be about true beauty?
I think this was a great idea to tackle in a post because I feel the same way that you do about these re-touched and non-touched photos.
I think that every girl/women in this world should know and realize that no one looks as perfect as magazines portray people to look like. People shouldn't convince themselves that people do actually look like that, because they don't, and in reality after you take away all the air-brushing, the photo-shoping, the re-touching, the make-up and all that un-needed editing, the model is just a normal person that most probably looks a lot like you and definitely has flaws to her.
On the subject of if re-touching is right or wrong, I should state my opinion that re-touching is completely wrong. I know we want to see girls that look good in the items that they are advertising, but at the same time, they are making it look like the items can only look good on flawless people and that you have to fit a certain image to wear those items. I think peoople should be shown how they really look to appeal much more to the people that are looking at the magazine cover and not make them feel imperfect compared to the model.
Great topic to bring up and a good post as well. :)
Yeah, like for the longest I thought models in magazines were perfect, and then I learned that they edit the photos to make them look ideal for usage.
I am glad to hear about this from another person's view though.
Post a Comment