BEFORE & AFTER: Photoshopped Celebrities

She buys her cream from Frigid Fluid Co.- the guys that make cream and blush and makeup for all the undertakers out there...........

See what I meant about projection? That is a textbook example

...AND TRY THE VEAL, IT'S TO DIE FOR...

If only everybody could take the images they are selling as a joke.

They shame of it is that a lot take them too seriously and mistake the incentives to buy stuff as motivations to live up to.

Hahahah!

All hail the retoucher. This was going on way before photoshop. Photoshop is the tool that allows the retoucher to do their magic. If you don't have the skills it won't look right no matter how good a program photoshop is.

This coming from a Graphic Designer who retouches clients.

Ugh same here! I actually had to detouch a "professional" photo I had taken of me once because the guy overly photoshopped it and I looked like a cross between a mannequin and a greasy drag queen (no joke it was frightening).

Nice smooth skin is one thing, but texture-less skin that looks like its been smothered in 10 lbs of vaseline is gross.

There is an "art" to doing it, and it does depend on the skills of the person, some are less profiecient at it than others.

If the photo was for you then you should be the one that decides what you want it to look like by whatever techniques are available.

The good thing about photoshop is that it is non-destructive so you always have the original image to go back to if you don't like the results.

Unlike a lot of photographic tricks that change the original completely.

You could also say that about the lazy film makers who's new mantra is "We'll fix it in post production"

yup
the passion isnt really there in photography anymore..

Argon, I totally agree...the craft of film is being compromised as well thanks to the digital era. Rather than actually planning out a scene and thinking it through, many filmmakers just go for the "shoot everything fix later" tactic which often shows in the final result.

Dont get me wrong, I love digital photography and the advancements in film...but it has come at the cost of quality for many artists.

There has to be a balance since there is no substitute for planning and just because there are the tools doesn't mean that replaces skills.

The things that can be done practically should be, but the things that can only be done in post production should be also.

It is part of the skills of the film maker to know the difference and what can be done with the budget and time to tell the story most effectively with all the tools available.

Couldnt have said it better myself :)

OMFG, you are so wrong. :P

I didn't see any "cows" in the before photos.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

it shouldn't be projected onto their self image, but often is, unfortunately. people aren't always as rational as we'd hope. :(

But as Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar

"Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

So we only have ourselves to blame for that since it has been going on long before photoshop, photography, painting or any other kind of representation.

I'd also like to say again that we're not just talking about adults who should have common sense, we're talking about teenagers who probably don't take the time to find out how much alteration is done. Call me crazy but I don't think a 15 year old flipping through teen vouge and falling for the false beauty standard is an "idiot"- naive? sure. Idiotic? no.

Yes it is since well before that age, people know that images are not real, they have touched mirrors and found they don't feel like the people reflected. They have seen pictures that are smaller than the people they represent.

By that age they certainly have seen enough ads and commercials to know that people when they are selling things that they put them in the best light.

So falling for that "false beauty standard" is both niave and idiotic since they certainly should've had enough experience to know that images are not real and that advertisements are not always completely truthful.

Being conditioned to believe in the myth those ads are selling is just as bad as being "star's underlings" since it is only being programmed to follow and not being "the master of their fate"

Your are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I find it extremely insensitive and short sighted. Children and teenagers are incredibly emotional and impressionable. It's hard to explain the amount of pressure and societal emphasis on beauty for girls and women.

There are other factors, but it doesn't absolve them of personal responsibility.

There are pressures on everyone in a society, but that doesn't make being a victim any kind of effective response to it.

Guys are programmed to be macho and driven to be "breadwinners" but that doesn't make it any better to fall for only one dimensional stereotypes any more than it does for women.

Blaming images isn't any more of an excuse than guys overcompensating by buying a sports car to pick up chicks.

If people don't realize that they are giving the control of their self image to the cosmetics companies and the magazine, then how are they ever going to grow beyond that kind of conditioning?

Only by growing beyond the emotional insecurities that will allow people to break the kind of hold the conditioning has so it's not that it is insensitive because everyone goes through that, but it is useless to only stop with blaming the images for thing that people do to themselves.

I don't recall absolving anyone of personal responsibility. I don't think this is a black and white issue as if the blame needs to fall exclusively on one party or the other; there needs to be a balance between corporate and media responsibility and personal education. Either way I'm still incredibly hesitant to call a young girl reading a fashion magazine and thinking "I wish I could look like that" an idiot.

Depends on how far they are willing to go to to try and look like that illusion and what it will cost them.

I used to look at car magazines and wish I had a Lamborgini, but I wasn't going to extremes to get one.

I do agree that there could be more responsibility in the cosmetic and fashion industry but that won't help anyone if they still insist on mistaking myths for their self image.

That is more idiotic than mistaking images that have been photoshopped for the real thing, both are distortions, it is just that one is compounded from the other.

Parents decide what the child should read or view. They have the power. Should the child read something or see something under the protection of the parent...it is the parent's fault and in some rare cases the child can be to blame for actions they decide to take to view something.

The company cannot be blamed if they are just doing as they've been doing. They are not personally going to people's homes and forcing them to read. Making the magazine enticing is their job.....it is not their job to think of protecting sensitive people who take suggestions from photos and believe the to be reality.

Better parenting creates smarter children. Children should not be reading magazines dealing with beauty. Parents should be smarter than that.

Letting a child read or look at anything certainly has it's downside.

Most magazines targeted to teenage girls deal with beauty - parents aren't stupid for letting a girl look through a fashion mag!

Actually most of them deal with selling cosmetics, whatever beauty discussion there is, is only a side effect not the priority

You allow your child to read or watch whatever you decide. Should they have a problem it's not the fault of the media but the parent for allowing it to be viewed.

The media is free to do as they wish. It is the responsability of the parent to decide if it's worth the risk to allow their child to read or view it.

When they allow it...they think the benefits out way the risk. Should the be wrong they have no one to blame but themselves.

There are rare occasions should someone else be blamed...but not when it's a fashion mag and they are having body issues...solely the reader's and/or parent's fault.

The mags are created because they are consumed....if they were not consumed they would not be made. The fault lies on those that buy them, not those that create them.

okay, J_Jammer, well what happens when that teenage girl gets older and buys her own fashion magazine, or goes to a friend's house and reads one of theirs? you can't hide your children from society. you just have to make sure to let them know that people don't really look like that in real life, and that a goal to look like that is most likely unattainable.
you sound like you'd be one of those creepy overprotective fathers that don't let their children out of the house. ever.

Some did look better when they weren't "retouched."

It's amazing that the Photoshopped pics only really look weird when they are side-by-side with their originals. I've seen some of them in magazines, and yes, they looked a little too perfect, but I would never have guessed how much Photoshopping had actually been done.

The Clive Owen photo is the only one that I saw in a magazine and immediately thought, "Wow. That's been heavily Photoshopped!" I think it's a lot easier to spot in men's photos, though. We're more used to seeing them with minimal makeup, looking rugged, dirty, etc.

None of it is "real" since they are all images

That's the sad part.

I thought the same thing. All the other celebrities were thinned, but she was made more voluptuous. Her image, I guess. She's Latina, and her husband is a basketballer, so she's supposed to have a little meat.

Well with Eva its also that shes actually been told countless times to put on some weight but shes definitely got body issues so she keeps taking it off. Its sad because you know you have a problem when people are photoshopping weight back on you (and not just to your boobs).

Agreed. If I want perfection, I just look at you! :)

I'm sorry where is that written? Celebrities are people maybe if you stop putting them on a pedestal they wouldn't get away with murders and other crimes the average person spends years in prison for... not to mention the fact that there are a lot of people out there that don't know about photoshop and have a completely warped idea of how a body and face should look... Photoshopping a 40-50 year old woman (makes sense sort of) Photoshopping a 17 year old pop star to make her look faultless (ridiculous) The amount of plastic surgery that is still being performed even though our economy is tanked, we have artificial inflation in houses that will keep people underwater for another decade or more and millions without real healthcare all for the pursuit of a perfect nose or a flat stomach or bigger tits, most of these issues brought on by altered photos of celebrities who suffer from the same issues.

Just because someone can write a song or can fake emotion in front of a camera doesn't mean they are more important than people who win nobel prizes. (and most of them don't even write their own material)