Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 73346 2006-10-16 10:59:00 Beauty is only skin deep.....? andrew93 (249) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
491855 2006-10-16 10:59:00 www.youtube.com

interesting.......
andrew93 (249)
491856 2006-10-16 18:20:00 5 star rating - excellent !

Thanks Andrew.
Strommer (42)
491857 2006-10-17 00:29:00 Very good clip! TGoddard (7263)
491858 2006-10-17 01:45:00 Ummm - what's it about? Greg (193)
491859 2006-10-17 03:23:00 Have you seen it Greg? andrew93 (249)
491860 2006-10-17 05:34:00 Its just a boring video of some average model, they put makeup on her, curl her hair, take the photo, then edit it with software to make her look beter.
Hohum.

When I saw the thread title I thought they might do something interesting, like flay her.
pctek (84)
491861 2006-10-17 09:39:00 Thanks for sharing that pctek........hmmmm, why didn't I think of describing it like that? Oh yeah - I wanted the males of PF1 to actually see the video because seeing is believing, as evidenced by two of the responses above. :annoyed:

The world we live in is surrounded by digitally altered images : I believe the average middle-aged (and older) female already knew this, but as for the average male and younger females, it is a different story. But hey, if you support the beauty / fashion industry then feel free to criticise. But before you do, consider this : do you suppose there is any correlation between anorexia and other disorders due to these sorts of images?

Yes we all already knew magazine & advertisement images were altered but how much did we really know? That they changed the bone structure of the face? Changed the length of the neck? Changed the location and size of the eyes? When seen in this context it is shocking, unreal and in hindsight absolutely absurd. So I won't sit idly by and not help with education process when it comes to corporations heaving unrealistic images of beauty onto an uninformed populace.

So dear reader, consider yourself informed.

Cheers, Andrew
:cool:
andrew93 (249)
491862 2006-10-17 11:45:00 I thought it was freaking awesome. roddy_boy (4115)
491863 2006-10-17 15:05:00 Thanks for sharing that pctek . . . . . . . . hmmmm, why didn't I think of describing it like that? Oh yeah - I wanted the males of PF1 to actually see the video because seeing is believing, as evidenced by two of the responses above . :annoyed:

The world we live in is surrounded by digitally altered images : I believe the average middle-aged (and older) female already knew this, but as for the average male and younger females, it is a different story . But hey, if you support the beauty / fashion industry then feel free to criticise . But before you do, consider this : do you suppose there is any correlation between anorexia and other disorders due to these sorts of images?

Yes we all already knew magazine & advertisement images were altered but how much did we really know? That they changed the bone structure of the face? Changed the length of the neck? Changed the location and size of the eyes? When seen in this context it is shocking, unreal and in hindsight absolutely absurd . So I won't sit idly by and not help with education process when it comes to corporations heaving unrealistic images of beauty onto an uninformed populace .

So dear reader, consider yourself informed .

Cheers, Andrew
:cool:


Your argument by inference suggests that only live videos are accurate and should be considered realistic and viewable . The "fixed media" of still photography looks to be the place of whoring by the beauty industry .

I imaging that it is considerably harder to alter the appearance of a moving object . . . harder, but not impossible mind you .

From this point, all non-moving photography is suspect .
SurferJoe46 (51)
491864 2006-10-17 17:38:00 Alcohol can produce the same effect as that video :lol: sam m (517)
1 2