A magazine with a no Photoshop policy

[batwister]

Trust me I work on set on movies a lot, after the introduction of HD recording video and movie they were very very specific about makeup because it's much more obvious with the HD video if there are flaws etc. So the idea is this makeup is designed to hide lines even better than "normal" makeup... It's all advertising of course but that explains it at least.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, got you. And I can understand the 'make-up as technology' thing in one sense - looking at the Library of Congress colour pictures from the 50s - the stuff women put on their faces back then looked like the surface of the moon.

 

[tron_]

Well, here in Norway, the population is generally pretty healthy (although both sexes are getting fatter these days).

The problem over here, is that normal, slender and perfectly normal girls, want to have sixpacks.
When a person has a visible sixpack (Madonna's body), they have a fat percentage which is about 5%, while the norm is somewhere between 20-30 for women and 15 and 20 for men, AFAIK.

- Such a low fat percentage can, among other things, be linked to a high risk of Osteoporosis (brittle bone disease) when females pass the menopause.

(Here's a typical chart) http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/ )

There are skinny people and people who have a low-fat percentage, but this isn't really the norm.
If they plan to use normal people (average fat percentage) with no shopping, I would have no problem with the idea, but if they just start using people which isn't really representative, then IMO the idea of "no shopping" could do more harm than good.

I am a little bit of a weightlifter and the average mans body fat is around 15%. The average for women is around 20%. Most people begin to see visible abdomenal muscles when they are around 10% (men) and 15% for women. But that has a lot to do with ones muscle genetics in the first place. I know I don't have those chunky ab muscles so I need to get below 10% in order to see that.

Some are "thin" but have such little muscle mass that they are able to carry around ~20% body fat without appearing fat with clothes on. Again, it all has to do with lean muscle mass.

5% body fat is absolutely miserable from what I hear and is not sustainable for more than a couple weeks. Even for men, 5% body fat is insanely lean.

 

[Tom1956]

Speaking as an ex-city person, now a country boy I've gotten to know and make friends with a good many of these fine folks out here. A lot of turkey and chicken farmers, as well as other live stock. I think a lot of you city people on here would be shocked to know what the feed companies are making chicken feed out of, for instance. And it follows right up the food chain. Now wonder I can't find a thin girl to marry. They're ALL overweight. And I don't say that disparagingly.
You can't expect to grind up the scraps from the slaughterhouse, mix it with corn and steroids, feed it right back to the next chicken house, and not have that follow up the chain.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Isn't illegal?

You can't expect to grind up the scraps from the slaughterhouse, mix it with corn and steroids, feed it right back to the next chicken house, and not have that follow up the chain.

With JKD (Mad cow) infecting herds, isn't it verboten?

 

[Hatchetman]

Can't feed bovine to bovine.

 

[Tom1956]

Don't know much about cattle marketing. Most of these herds around here are privately owned and traded. But I do know about poultry, as this is poultry country around here in NC and SC. A good friend of mine is a retired turkey farmer. You can't drive 3 miles around here before you see 3- 150 yard long chicken houses, side by side. They're growing those chickens so fast, you wouldn't believe it. A chicken around here is lucky if he has a month to live from chick to slaughterhouse. The food they give them technically makes them cannibals.

 

[Helinophoto]

5% body fat is absolutely miserable from what I hear and is not sustainable for more than a couple weeks. Even for men, 5% body fat is insanely lean.

Well, this is the so-called "size zero", imagine walking around and working like that for months on end, many (not all) "top" models are or are close to size zero, very very unhealthy.

No wonder they have to start the day with a bowl of salad and a hit of cocaine.

 

[Truzi]

Keep in mind that the size numbers have changed too. A "3" is larger than a "3" was even 10 years ago.

 

[winger]

Keep in mind that the size numbers have changed too. A "3" is larger than a "3" was even 10 years ago.

Yes, definitely. While in college, I wore a size that's about 3 sizes up from where I am now and my body is mostly the same as then (I can wear clothes I bought 15-20 years ago and they still fit). Though there's either some hyperbole in the "size zero" comment or there's a very large difference in size between a zero and a 2.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yikes!

The food they give them technically makes them cannibals.

It's like human eating monkeys and apes.

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, this is the so-called "size zero", imagine walking around and working like that for months on end, many (not all) "top" models are or are close to size zero, very very unhealthy.

No wonder they have to start the day with a bowl of salad and a hit of cocaine.

Along with what Winger said...

A size 0 has very little to do with body mass and more to do with bone structure.

Also there is a huge difference between a 0 and a 2 if you're a 2 or a 0 or 00 it matters a lot.

My GF is a 00 and eats more then me, but egged also 5'8" so finding pants means she always buys "big" with a 0 because they stopped making 00 clothing and also, kids clothing is too short for her legs.

A size 2 literally falls off her without unbuttoning...

She also eats about twice what I eat daily, I'm effectively a size 6 if I were a woman, and 5'8" as well.

Point is her bone structure is very small.

Some asian women for example are considered overweight and are size 0 but because of height or genetics are not the "healthy" size because the body mass of her genetic line is "normal" at a very thin (to us Americans) size.

Not all 0's are coke snorting anorexics... Just like not all overweight people are fast food eating slobs...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Prof_Pixel]

This thread has certainly strayed a LONG way from the original comment

 

[winger]

This thread has certainly strayed a LONG way from the original comment

But that's the fun of APUG (as long as the OP doesn't mind much).



Stone, I feel for your GF - I'm only 5'6", but my height is mostly in my legs and they don't have longer inseams for smaller sizes. Jeans are easier to find than pants, which is why I wear jeans so much.

 

[StoneNYC]

But that's the fun of APUG (as long as the OP doesn't mind much).



Stone, I feel for your GF - I'm only 5'6", but my height is mostly in my legs and they don't have longer inseams for smaller sizes. Jeans are easier to find than pants, which is why I wear jeans so much.

What's kind of ironic is that we were shopping for hiking pants and even those at REI (which are known to run in smaller sizes because fit people (mostly) run on the small side) were too big, 0 kept falling off her as she walked and she looked like a 90's kid with her pants hanging low haha!

Whatever happened to the days stores carried a short, regular, and long size pant??

Also it's strange often stores get 1-2 of each size instead of for example having 1-2 in 0-4 size but then having 3-5 pairs in 6-10 and again taper off to 1-2 for 12-16 or something, I always see extra 14 and 12 and 0 and 2 sizes hanging when all the other sizes are sold out...

And yes this is totally OT... Sorry OP


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tron_]

Well, this is the so-called "size zero", imagine walking around and working like that for months on end, many (not all) "top" models are or are close to size zero, very very unhealthy.

No wonder they have to start the day with a bowl of salad and a hit of cocaine.

I would have to respectfully disagree . 5% body fat on a woman doesn't necessarily make her a size 0. I know a few girls who are size 0s and they just have very low levels of lean mass but still have average-ish BF (I say average-ish because they're on the lower end of that scale). Some people just have that small bone structure.

But alas this isn't bodybuilding.com so I'll refrain from any more rants like this .

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Is the tide turning on retouched models?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/verily-magazine-no-photoshop_n_4079217.html

No Photoshop? I wonder how they do their prepress.

I guess you can always tweak colours in InDesign.

(I know, I know, they just mean "no elongated limbs or pumped up parts," but still...)

 

[Helinophoto]

Along with what Winger said...
Not all 0's are coke snorting anorexics... Just like not all overweight people are fast food eating slobs...
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

If you go back and check, I don't say that, I also mention that some people are just skinny by nature, some people in Asia are smaller in general etcetc.
Should be pretty self-explanatory that I'm talking about normal people that mess with their health to reach idiotic levels of fat-deposits, this happens all over the world, even in Asia, where they are tiny to begin with.

 

[StoneNYC]

If you go back and check, I don't say that, I also mention that some people are just skinny by nature, some people in Asia are smaller in general etcetc.
Should be pretty self-explanatory that I'm talking about normal people that mess with their health to reach idiotic levels of fat-deposits, this happens all over the world, even in Asia, where they are tiny to begin with.

Fair enough, I'm often guilty of generalizing too, so I follow you now.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

Not all 0's are coke snorting anorexics... Just like not all overweight people are fast food eating slobs...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

couldn't agree more with you stone.
some folks are just thin just like others aren't.

and there is a social stigma attached to both ...

 

[StoneNYC]

couldn't agree more with you stone.
some folks are just thin just like others aren't.

and there is a social stigma attached to both ...

thanks john

Now get off the couch and put down that snickers bar!!!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[removed account4]

cr@p its a KING SIZE too ...

 

[I.G.I.]

Fashion is cyclical ... Fat women used to be all the rage, show your wealth with a hefty girl you can afford to feed...

The aesthetic ideal for "beauty" is dictated by the ruling class. When there was food scarcity (most of human history) overweight signalled membership of the upper classes; it was one of the signs of prestige. Today when junk food is cheap and readily available the wealthy are lean because they generally refrain from; and the poor who consume the fast food and the soft drinks are obese.

 

[StoneNYC]

The aesthetic ideal for "beauty" is dictated by the ruling class. When there was food scarcity (most of human history) overweight signalled membership of the upper classes; it was one of the signs of prestige. Today when junk food is cheap and readily available the wealthy are lean because they generally refrain from; and the poor who consume the fast food and the soft drinks are obese.

+1

I can see how that makes sense


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I.G.I.]

Is the tide turning on retouched models?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/10/verily-magazine-no-photoshop_n_4079217.html

The article misses the point I am afraid. The problem is not the retouching as such - as others have mentioned it was a standard photographic practice long before the arrival of digital and PS; it was done either by the photographers, or by their skilled assistants; and after all one of the main aims of ad photos is to induce dreams and aspirations. The problem with PS is the raw power and the standardisation of the software. As a result the altered photos are often lifeless, and look very much alike as were churned out by a factory line. That's what actually cause the objections: photoshopping often erase faces' individuality as certain "imperfections" and asymmetries is what give the face character. It's interesting that PS, plastic surgery, and the so called "aesthetic dentistry" have the same fake unappealing look: taut, straightened, and uniform in colour.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Are we so ugly

I think images today is just another consumer item. Just like any item consumed, it is in the interest for the buyer to find out what it does to and for the end user. Consuming blindly is without knowing the intent of the producer and what it does to the end user is bad. Blasky astutely stated that it's fantasy. The danger is when one thinks touched up models is a standard of beauty or makes the everyday mundane scary and ugly. Escapism is fine as long as you come back to reality. Magazines have always been able to create fantasy without Photoshop. Magazines and media have alway made many folks feel inadequate and ugly if it lets them. Not only that, media distorted the reality of what is desirable and beautiful.


How many men out there are chasing that Victoria's Secret model? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_AFk9aOAA