celebrity advertising and magazine shoots have that strange dual purpose- the celebrity both advertises a product and is a product, even more so than regular models.

there's a documentary called "A Perfect Fake", by and about men actually, whose thesis is that men respond to symbols more than they do to actual beauty -- and i guess that's what's going on in these images. they've been pared down to the most basic symbols - a smooth skin, thickened hair, and lips, white skin, thin body, large breasts. i can look at those pictures now and recognize when i'm looking at a product rather than an individual. creative fiction is clearly the intent.
no wonder celebrities are irritated by the results.

ick. check out the 'portfolio' section of this photo retouching studio's site. click and rollover photos for before and after.

the worst is beyonce (i think). they actually chopped off her jelly rolls. as a photo editor who looks at photos all day and appreciates a good photo, i'm okay with using lighting or photoshop for flattery. but actually altering the shape and pose of a model is ridiculous!

That was just weird, nickclick. It was like they were making whole new people in some cases.

this is similar link about retouching, but it has a fun, interactive way to switch back and forth between the original and the fabrication:
http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/retouch/

your site is waaaaay creepier nickclick. eve longoria looks like a bobble head doll after they slim her down. i though it was interesting how they actually widened cameron diaz out!

I feel bound to say something since I am enmeshed at this at present. In some measure I feel grateful for retouching, as long as it's not out of control. It makes me feel like the picture captures more of the essence of a moment, and it also makes me feel like I have a little control over life?
I weigh 95lbs and I am 5'2". I wear size 00 or smaller and I can still look heavy on camera if my arms are not placed right. My skin is flawless most of the time, but retouching will make the lighting glow even if they don't really do much. Maybe they're fabrications, but it's about making pictures, not reality. Everyone realizes that: models, makeup artists, and photographers.

re models natural size and why it doesn't happen often on the market: runway fashion is controlled by gay men--not to stereotype, but largely it is. commercial fashion is controlled by hetero men--on a business sense. Who is buying all the looks from the runway? Them, and translating it over. Young, virginal women that have appealed to many cultures for thousands of years are lissome with perky breasts.

Cultures that are traditionally attracted to women who have demonstrated child-bearing ability are generally agrarian such as rural Mexico. No information whatsoever to back me up, but since we in a global sense are becoming an industrial world, wouldn't it make sense to become more and more attracted to something that looks like a robot? At least theoretically.

Which would give apt meaning to the phrase "baby turn me on"

/gigglesnort

"Somehow, even though I didn't truly value appearances, I came to wear the make-up just because society told me I was supposed to want to. That realization was one of the weirdest feelings I've ever had; you think if you have your priorities in order, you're immune to that sort of thing. The best thing I can compare it to is a superstition. I didn't actually care much what I looked like, even knew that I felt better without the make-up, but somewhere in me I had the idea that Something Bad would happen if I stopped wearing it."
from a metafilter thread about 8-year-old girls getting bikini waxes (WTF?)

The last part of this paragraph is confusing to me, especially, the answer to the question, "Them, and translating it over." Do you mean that the young viriginal women are buying the clothes or the gay men that run the fashion industry.

*bump*

supermodel Paulina Porizkova on aging.