Perfect Pixels wrote:
This has been very enlightening.  I knew it was being done, but not to this extent.  Anyone know what program they used in the Dove movie?

Most likely Photoshop!

Many professional photographers MUST use Photoshop, or they get beaten up by the colleagues. They call it peerpressure...

UdoR wrote:

Most likely Photoshop!

Many professional photographers MUST use Photoshop, or they get beaten up by the colleagues. They call it peerpressure...

I use photoshop everyday for my job as a graphic designer and I do not recognize any of the palettes they were using.  It may have been a plugin for PS, but a stock version of PS did not do those things.

Kevin Connery wrote:
And advertising, and celebrity...

Britney before and after

UdoR wrote:
I left a comment on that one:

"I love when those kind of comparisons are being made. Let me just point out something. The first image of Britney is apparently before makeup, hair etc. was done! The lighting is also a different one, probably a built in flash in a camera. So, once hair and MUA's are done, lighting is being set properly and then shot. I bet that the before Photoshop and after Photoshop images of image number two will not be THAT much different. How do I know? I am a runway/fashionphotographer in NYC. This is my job."

Posted by: UdoR | October 14, 2006 6:37 PM

Are we looking at the same page? That 'before' could be the same photo as the after; the catchlights match, the sheen on the lips match, the facial characteristics match (e.g. same distance to subject w/same lens), etc. There's enough hair that does match to support this also, though much of it does not--composited from other shots, perhaps? The facial contours could also have been tweaked in post-production; certainly the lightening of the shadow of the hair to camera left, and the increase and shaping of the shadow on camera right. It's fairly extreme, but I've seen work more extreme than this.

Webspinner wrote:
[...]
However, I have also noticed that almost every man that I have dated seems to think I look really sexy when I have just rolled out of bed and am wearing plaid pyjama bottoms and their t-shirts. So, while beauty may be distorted in the 'beauty' industry, most guys still respond to natural beauty.

A photograph is a 2 dimensional visual slice of a 4 dimensional situation with more than just visual cues. Sometimes it's helpful to boost the visual aspects to make up for the loss of depth, time, scent, feel, taste...

UdoR wrote:
The first image of Britney is apparently before makeup, hair etc. was done!.......

How do I know? I am a runway/fashionphotographer in NYC. This is my job."

Sorry Udo, you know i luv ya, but i have to disagree.  The makeup is already done in the first shot.  The lighting does suck, but the makeup is exactly the same. The only difference in the hair is that they attempted a "cool" messy look that ended up looking crappy.  So they smoothed the upper portion of the hair in PS (the ends are already blown out and finished the same way in both shots).
How do i know?  This is my job.

Kevin-James Bennett wrote:

Sorry Udo, you know i luv ya, but i have to disagree.  The makeup is already done in the first shot.  The lighting does suck, but the makeup is exactly the same. The only difference in the hair is that they attempted a "cool" messy look that ended up looking crappy.  So they smoothed the upper portion of the hair in PS (the ends are already blown out and finished the same way in both shots).
How do i know?  This is my job.

Nice call...I agree...good eye...

Jamie Garrett wrote:
I'm sorry.. I can't stand the whole "you're beautiful the way you are" thing.. HELL NO, YOU'RE NOT!! Why do you wear make-up? Why do you brush your hair? Why do you wear certain 'fits' of clothes? Why do you brush your teeth? Why do you do your nails? Why do you dye your hair? Why do you tan? Why do you consider/go through with plastic surgery? Why do you do ANYTHING if you actually think you are "beautiful the way you are"? It's because you want to look better.. prettier.. It's becuase you don't think you're hot shit all the time. There is pretty, and then there is ugly. Natural beauty doesn't need a bunch of cover-up.. but it is necessary to look presentable. Ugly needs all the help it can get. I look pretty good when I'm all done up.. but I'll be damned if anyone besides my family sees me without make-up.
Models don't need to be beautiful all the time. Sometimes "frumpiness" is preferred. Watch a Victoria's Secret Angels commercial.. then watch a a Prozac commercial. See? Beautiful and down right ugly. Those ugly people in the pill commercial are BY NO MEANS beautiful (though they might be nice people). Ugh.. I don't know if that made sense.. but make-up is necessary. Photoshop is necessary. Dieting and working out is necessary. And if you actually think you are 100%, naturally beautiful.. stop doing everything I just mentioned. After all, you're NATURAL, right??

Well, I don't wear makeup except on RARE occassions, usually when the photographer requests it, or when I actually have an occassion to go out, which isn't often. I frankly hate makeup. My routine with my hair is shampoo, condition (leave in while I wash my body), then rinse, then air dry because I can't stand hair dryers. I haven't used a hair dryer in lord knows how many years. I use a wide tooth comb mostly, because somebody said it was healthier for hair. *shrugs* Sounded good to me. Almost all the images in my port are without makeup, and probably no more than 10 minutes of work with my hair. Everything you see is all natural with me. Period.

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder... however, people are beautiful to me not because of what is on the outside, but what is on the inside. I have delightful relationships with a wide variety of people whom I find downright sexy despite having more than decades difference between ages. They are a turnon for me because of their minds, not because of their bodies. If their bodies look good then its just a bonus.

I guess I am just natural. Its easy, simple, and makes sense. It causes me the least amount of stress and worry, and frankly I don't care what anybody else thinks. Its nice to be able to infulence someone because of my looks, and I'll be the first person to say that I've done that before, and will continue to do so when the whim strikes me. Seduction is an enjoyable thing, but its not something that I'd want to do everyday. As its said, if somebody can't appreciate me when I roll out of bed with my hair touseled and kissingfish pj pants on, then its not worth my time.

I'm sorry you've become so jaded to buy into the propaganda that people are not beautiful just the way they are. I'm sorry that you can't find the beauty that people have just for being who they are. I'm sorry that you are dumping tons of money into makeup and products to make you create an illusion of beauty for yourself. I think I'll be happy to stick to being natural.

Jael M wrote:
This is interesting..... have to love photoshop! This also answers the question about the "photoshop vs MUA"....as you can see the MUA was very important (and stylist).

The frumpy chick turned into billboard material:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/ho … ion_v2.swf

I thought it was pretty stupid.  Our perception of beauty does not depend on the way this beauty was created.  We don't know the process we just think: BEATIFUL or NOT SO BEAUTIFUL.

Perception of beauty is simply sence, or your vision of beauty.  If I see a beatifull picture of the woman - I think she is beautiful, and that is my perception of it - who cares how she really looks?!

Besides not all women need all that stuff done to them to look beautiful.yes.

Cool Crys wrote:
I believe that this was very powerful! I'll share it!

Another successful comercial.

Israel wrote:
What a waste! The could have just started with a beautiful model and saved all that work.

good point.

NC17 wrote:

Well, I don't wear makeup except on RARE occassions, usually when the photographer requests it, or when I actually have an occassion to go out, which isn't often. I frankly hate makeup. My routine with my hair is shampoo, condition (leave in while I wash my body), then rinse, then air dry because I can't stand hair dryers. I haven't used a hair dryer in lord knows how many years. I use a wide tooth comb mostly, because somebody said it was healthier for hair. *shrugs* Sounded good to me. Almost all the images in my port are without makeup, and probably no more than 10 minutes of work with my hair. Everything you see is all natural with me. Period.

Beautiful is in the eye of the beholder... however, people are beautiful to me not because of what is on the outside, but what is on the inside. I have delightful relationships with a wide variety of people whom I find downright sexy despite having more than decades difference between ages. They are a turnon for me because of their minds, not because of their bodies. If their bodies look good then its just a bonus.

I guess I am just natural. Its easy, simple, and makes sense. It causes me the least amount of stress and worry, and frankly I don't care what anybody else thinks. Its nice to be able to infulence someone because of my looks, and I'll be the first person to say that I've done that before, and will continue to do so when the whim strikes me. Seduction is an enjoyable thing, but its not something that I'd want to do everyday. As its said, if somebody can't appreciate me when I roll out of bed with my hair touseled and kissingfish pj pants on, then its not worth my time.

I'm sorry you've become so jaded to buy into the propaganda that people are not beautiful just the way they are. I'm sorry that you can't find the beauty that people have just for being who they are. I'm sorry that you are dumping tons of money into makeup and products to make you create an illusion of beauty for yourself. I think I'll be happy to stick to being natural.

Umm.. Ok. Being natural is an ok thing to be.. if you aren't a model. But, this is a site for models. Not everyday people. For some of us, it is our JOB to be beautiful all the time. Cameras don't see "inner beauty". I get paid to look my best. If that's considered being "jaded".. then don't feel sorry for me. Go back and read what I said. I never said anything about personality.. or the lack of it. I was strictly referring to PHYSICAL beauty.. which is the topic of this forum (Dove making an ugly woman beautiful).

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Jesus, who gives a shit?

The point is simple..

Photoshop or make up and lighting?  So what?  The industry uses it.  Fake/Real? Who cares.. Pros use whatever means gets to the end desired.  If you're a model you want to be part of it, if you're a photographer you want to shoot it..  If you're not serious about being a professional you don't care and no one cares what you have to say..

Bottom line:

Yay for corporations.
Fuck people.

"If you're not serious about being a professional you don't care and no one cares what you have to say.."

Thank you.

Kevin-James Bennett wrote:
Sorry Udo, you know i luv ya, but i have to disagree.  The makeup is already done in the first shot.  The lighting does suck, but the makeup is exactly the same. The only difference in the hair is that they attempted a "cool" messy look that ended up looking crappy.  So they smoothed the upper portion of the hair in PS (the ends are already blown out and finished the same way in both shots).
How do i know?  This is my job.

LOL...

Well, I was also looking at the angle of her face.

Maybe it's just me, but I reexamined both photos and there are several issues that still lets me doubt that those are really before and after photos.



Take a look at the angle of the photo, yes, it can be rotated by a degree to straighten it out, but... it appears that her head is also tilted on her neck, and...

Notice her right shoulder (left from our POV) and the fuller hair. Well, I can not see her shoulder at all.



Now, this image is straight, her head is straight on her neck, the image is cropped, hair thinned out over her shoulder, more attached over her eyes... AND her shoulder was added!

Then shadows were added over her face.

I know Kevin, you are one of the best and most experienced MUA's in this country, and you know I value your judgement call totally.

Yet, I doubt that they preferred to simply snap a trailer trash photo and spend then hours to fix that up, what would have simply be done with a second frame after someone brushes her hair and changed the lighting a little bit.

This doesn't need much and you know how I work, simple, but controlled and I just have problems to accept that a celebrity photographer wouldn't know how to fix this in a second and Photoshop would need less time for minor retouching.

W.G. Rowland wrote:
Fuck people.

If you don't fuck people, what do you fuck?... 

studio36uk wrote:
You're 5' 0" but a good PS guy can make you look, say, 5' 10" with a little effort.

Who needs Photoshop?

Madcitychel wrote:

gawd I love her freckles

Madcitychel wrote:

"Are only women with perfect skin could be beautiful?"

Is this a Bush quote?

UdoR wrote:

LOL...

Well, I was also looking at the angle of her face.

Maybe it's just me, but I reexamined both photos and there are several issues that still lets me doubt that those are really before and after photos.



Take a look at the angle of the photo, yes, it can be rotated by a degree to straighten it out, but... it appears that her head is also tilted on her neck, and...

Notice her right shoulder (left from our POV) and the fuller hair. Well, I can not see her shoulder at all.



Now, this image is straight, her head is straight on her neck, the image is cropped, hair thinned out over her shoulder, more attached over her eyes... AND her shoulder was added!

Then shadows were added over her face.

I know Kevin, you are one of the best and most experienced MUA's in this country, and you know I value your judgement call totally.

Yet, I doubt that they preferred to simply snap a trailer trash photo and spend then hours to fix that up, what would have simply be done with a second frame after someone brushes her hair and changed the lighting a little bit.

This doesn't need much and you know how I work, simple, but controlled and I just have problems to accept that a celebrity photographer wouldn't know how to fix this in a second and Photoshop would need less time for minor retouching.

Great points..

However, I've seen the exaxct samething time and time again. I too question why such drastic retouches are done. BUT IT HAPPENS all the time. I've seen bodypart created and replaced... the reason I dont doubt this is I have seen it a million times.
It all comes down to BUDGET and the knowledge of KNOWING its going to be done. Less care is given to the actual shot.

Also.The photgrapher had nothing to do with the retouch..It was passed on to a post team.

Hurray for Hollywood.. :-(

Madcitychel wrote:

Hahahahaa... I love it!

I am sooo gona use that one!

Stephen Melvin wrote:
"gawd I love her freckles"


She's a cute girl.

UdoR wrote:
Is this a Bush quote?

Jamie Garrett wrote:

My bitchiness keeps me awake.

Obviously

Jael M wrote:
This is interesting..... have to love photoshop! This also answers the question about the "photoshop vs MUA"....as you can see the MUA was very important (and stylist).

The frumpy chick turned into billboard material:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/ho … ion_v2.swf

This is one of the better threads I have seen. Thanks for sparking such a debate. I have two comments on both sides. First, I hate the way many pics today are photoshopped to death, it almost looks like a cartoon.

On the other side, for hundreds of years the medium of choice and necessity was a paint brush. Who knows what some of the models actually looked like. It was up to the skill and interpretation of the painter as to what he or she looked like.

David Linke wrote:
To Hollywood's credit, I am starting to see more actresses with a few more curves, and less of the anorexic sticks that were so popular until about five years ago.

Please.  I was at the grocery store yesterday & of the pile of celeb-obsessed mags & tabloids at the checkout line, half featured pics of skeletal women and questions about, or tips on, their diets.

Vance wrote:
1. That little piece did exactly what the marketing gurus wanted. It sparked something that causes everyone to remember DOVE. BULLSEYE

See, that's not always a GOOD thing
I rarely pay attention to ads, but ones that upset me I remember, and I make a point to not buy those brands

Seth wrote:
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Is the Dove campaign about money?  Sure it is.  Will it get some young girls looking in a magazine to think twice before they leap head long into depression because they are not pretty enough?  I think it  could.

Yes the campaign is a bit overblown, but it is trying to make a point - and some good can come of it (on top of Dove's quest for greater market share).

I agree