xmrsvindieselx
Well-known member
If they can make "non-perfect" pics "perfect" ...how do you know they didnt mess with the first pic to make her looks bad?
This is why I am skeptical about Britney's Harper's Bazaar shoot.
- Thread starter aziajs
- Start date
aziajs
Well-known member
Quote:
It is entirely possible. I have seen pics that have aged or worsened someone's appearance. However, in this case I don't think that's what's going on.
| Originally Posted by xmrsvindieselx If they can make "non-perfect" pics "perfect" ...how do you know they didnt mess with the first pic to make her looks bad? |
It is entirely possible. I have seen pics that have aged or worsened someone's appearance. However, in this case I don't think that's what's going on.
aziajs
Well-known member
Quote:
Let's see....where to start....yes, celebs are people too. But after hours of hair, makeup, wardrobe styling, and working with a photographer and lighting crew and that's how she looks???? And they have to heavily photoshop the pic on top of that?? Come on. Celebs are people too but they are people with the money and resources most other people don't have.
| Originally Posted by shimmer Britney isn't my girl, not over anyone else really. Britney looks bogus? I'd love to see anyone pose for an internationally read magazine at the height of pregnancy (or not, either way) and NOT allow their image to be photoshopped. I'd love to see all members on this site NOT photoshop their face before posting their fotd's (and I'm not saying everyone does but I am saying it happens). Shocking what a celeb looks like? Celebs are people too. |
Let's see....where to start....yes, celebs are people too. But after hours of hair, makeup, wardrobe styling, and working with a photographer and lighting crew and that's how she looks???? And they have to heavily photoshop the pic on top of that?? Come on. Celebs are people too but they are people with the money and resources most other people don't have.
aziajs
Well-known member
Quote:
That very well may be and I am sure there are people who will think just that. Imagine a very similar person who will head over to the FOTD section where there are people of all ages, races, sizes, and skill levels and see all of the support, encouraging words and praise that are being given to normal people just like them.
| Originally Posted by shimmer As an aside: imagine for a minute seeing the commentary about Britney here through the eyes of someone with fledgling self esteem... Who hasn't the nerve yet to post an FOTD Or be active on the site Or make a contribution Who isn't a pro and reads these comments.... How must it make that person feel? "If they are willing to trash Britney Spears, and I'm no where near as pretty as she is...with our without makeup...I'm NEVER posting FOTD's." But that's just my opinion. |
That very well may be and I am sure there are people who will think just that. Imagine a very similar person who will head over to the FOTD section where there are people of all ages, races, sizes, and skill levels and see all of the support, encouraging words and praise that are being given to normal people just like them.
Jaim
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree with this! It's crazy to think that she looks "bad" in the picture... she just looks real. But unfortunately, looking real isn't good enough for some people. And the reality is that no one can stay looking young forever!
I also think she would look better if she smiled or something instead of trying to be sexy, but that's beside the point I guess.
| Originally Posted by shimmer Perhaps if the public were to actually show the mag editors that we WANT to see the celebs as they really are instead of after the airbrushed magic this wouldn't be such a huge deal. |
I agree with this! It's crazy to think that she looks "bad" in the picture... she just looks real. But unfortunately, looking real isn't good enough for some people. And the reality is that no one can stay looking young forever!
I also think she would look better if she smiled or something instead of trying to be sexy, but that's beside the point I guess.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
hold up...
so who's to blame there?
The subject?
Obviously she's an attractive girl. She's always been attractive.
Given that to work with, it's her fault those people who are likely paid more than fairly for the work they are supposed to do couldn't do better than that???
The photographer couldn't // didn't look through his lens and say "SOMEONE FIX HER HAIR, STAT! oh and HEY someone grab some visine too! You! There! Holding THAT light! Move it this way just a bit!!!"
And that's the subject's fault?
No.
Yes, absolutely she could take much better care of herself. However to hold solely her responsible for how she looks in that image is quite unrealistic.
As you said it takes a team of professionals to do a photoshoot and obviously their work that day was just as sub par as she was.
| Originally Posted by aziajs Let's see....where to start....yes, celebs are people too. But after hours of hair, makeup, wardrobe styling, and working with a photographer and lighting crew and that's how she looks???? And they have to heavily photoshop the pic on top of that?? Come on. Celebs are people too but they are people with the money and resources most other people don't have. |
hold up...
so who's to blame there?
The subject?
Obviously she's an attractive girl. She's always been attractive.
Given that to work with, it's her fault those people who are likely paid more than fairly for the work they are supposed to do couldn't do better than that???
The photographer couldn't // didn't look through his lens and say "SOMEONE FIX HER HAIR, STAT! oh and HEY someone grab some visine too! You! There! Holding THAT light! Move it this way just a bit!!!"
And that's the subject's fault?
No.
Yes, absolutely she could take much better care of herself. However to hold solely her responsible for how she looks in that image is quite unrealistic.
As you said it takes a team of professionals to do a photoshoot and obviously their work that day was just as sub par as she was.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
You're right, they could.
Of course in the mindset of individuals like that, the idea that they're on the same playing field as pretty much any of the girls who post is foreign. Add in factors such as a couple of other websites that troll this site and a few others for FOTDs to RCS and make fun of and you have a whole new reason for them to be trepidatious.
| Originally Posted by aziajs That very well may be and I am sure there are people who will think just that. Imagine a very similar person who will head over to the FOTD section where there are people of all ages, races, sizes, and skill levels and see all of the support, encouraging words and praise that are being given to normal people just like them. |
You're right, they could.
Of course in the mindset of individuals like that, the idea that they're on the same playing field as pretty much any of the girls who post is foreign. Add in factors such as a couple of other websites that troll this site and a few others for FOTDs to RCS and make fun of and you have a whole new reason for them to be trepidatious.
Shimmer
Well-known member
As another angle of this discussion, another site I'm on has had this debate for months...
Now that we're in the days of digital (DOD) most photographers really don't care about how the initial shot looks, as long as it's 'workable'. The definition (in this instance) of workable is that a retoucher (usually the photographer but in cases such as the one creating this thread, someone else) can easily go through and make it as it was mentally envisioned with minimal effort. The lighting is good, the hair is generally okay...etc.
THAT is why the above photographs look the way they do, because the retouchers can very easily come right behind the photographer and 'fix' the image, and it's less work.
Now that we're in the days of digital (DOD) most photographers really don't care about how the initial shot looks, as long as it's 'workable'. The definition (in this instance) of workable is that a retoucher (usually the photographer but in cases such as the one creating this thread, someone else) can easily go through and make it as it was mentally envisioned with minimal effort. The lighting is good, the hair is generally okay...etc.
THAT is why the above photographs look the way they do, because the retouchers can very easily come right behind the photographer and 'fix' the image, and it's less work.
inlucesco
Well-known member
Eh. What does it matter if she's photoshopped? The Harper's Bazaar photos are elegant and beautiful. I don't think they're supposed to be representative of Real Pregnant Women Everywhere. Photography, and in this case fashion photography, is often an art form. I don't think it gives her less credibility, as it were, to be photoshopped.
Or rather, I don't look at her photos and think, she's perpetrating a myth. I think we all know that no one goes through pregnancy (or life, considering her pre-pregnancy pictures too) looking exactly like that....but wouldn't it be nice if everyone could.
Or rather, I don't look at her photos and think, she's perpetrating a myth. I think we all know that no one goes through pregnancy (or life, considering her pre-pregnancy pictures too) looking exactly like that....but wouldn't it be nice if everyone could.
mzcelaneous
Well-known member
Quote:
VERY true. I know many photographers who think that way
| Originally Posted by Shimmer most photographers really don't care about how the initial shot looks, as long as it's 'workable'. |
VERY true. I know many photographers who think that way
angeldust
Active member
regardless of the fact of whether or not she was touched up, she was probably preggers at the time, and she looks pretty decent in the first pic when thinking about it. its pretty much a given whether or not you're a celebrity that shitty pictures are bound to happen. i mean ive done a lot of hair and makeup for toni&guy shoots and a lot of times the girls aren't on top of their game and they look like ogres. shit happens.. britney was a fox at one time or another...i guess that just wasnt one of her days. i think with modeling or magazine covers you're always going to have to take it with a grain of salt anyways..EVERYONE is photoshopped not just brit.
JULIA
Well-known member
Aw, she looks beat. Is it just me, or does she look like Ashlee Simpson (slightly) in the second picture? Regardless of how photoshopped she is, I still have a great amount of respect for her. She's done her share of dumb things but she's more successful than I'll ever be and worth more than I could ever make. I hope she overcomes whatever she's going through and makes a comeback. I miss our world and how Britney-crazy it once was.
meagannn
Well-known member
Quote:
That is so crazy. People do that? save the FOTDs and make fun of them? jeez. i knew people were mean but i didn't know that anybody that mean would even know about this place.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer You're right, they could. Of course in the mindset of individuals like that, the idea that they're on the same playing field as pretty much any of the girls who post is foreign. Add in factors such as a couple of other websites that troll this site and a few others for FOTDs to RCS and make fun of and you have a whole new reason for them to be trepidatious. |
That is so crazy. People do that? save the FOTDs and make fun of them? jeez. i knew people were mean but i didn't know that anybody that mean would even know about this place.
