You've hit the nail right on the head. We are inundated with mass amounts of cheap products while low wage workers don't even have enough to live on. Also look at factory farms. We all must consume, but consume with awareness.
Story of Stuff...
Worth the time to watch.
Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
These "photographs" are also used for display in the offices of the cosmetic companies in very large sizes and for promotion in stores, so I don't think they go cheap on any of that part of the business.
I'm a watch enthusiast/collector and most watches in ads are also computer generated because of the time element. GOOD PUN.
Actually when the marketing dept starts to promote the watches they are not usually even made yet, so they are all created on a computer.
Judge by the results, not by the industry rumours; the glaringly fake and lifeless photoshopped images are done (and approved) by people with poor aesthetic culture. Indeed poor aesthetic culture encountered en masse is a complex phenomenon, but apart from (lack) of individual talent it is generally caused by lack of good education, and poor working environment. For comparison sake, go to http://www.imdb.com/ and have a look at portrait stills of Hollywood stars from the 1950s; obviously retouched and perfected yet still recognisably human and not devoid of charm. Current cosmetic ads are literally depressing... not only there is a lack of interesting faces (a general problem in portraiture), but even those famous and supposedly alluring are butchered with low quality PS intervention. This is a glaring example, JR for Lancome (one of the biggest players in upmarket cosmetics, and a big advertiser in all glossy magazines). Hardly a fan of JR I can't deny her real face exude some (animalistic) vitality. In contrast her shot for Lancome is not only mediocre and devoid of anything, but what followed is truly atrocious... I simply find hard to believe that this was done by a highly skilled well paid professionals.
hate to say this I.G.I.
but the image on the left
looks like an airbrushed image
from the 1970s or 1980s ...
removing wrinkles (laugh lines and crows feet )
and thinning a face have been done
for 100 years ...
i find it kind of funny that people insist that manipulation
and reconstruction is a thing of "now" ...
and i find it funny that a magazine has such a heavy handed approach
to not allowing "photo shopped images" do they only allow film and hand retouched things ?
its the same thing ..
If you think the person that did this retouching work is a hack, then I suggest you take the image on the right and try to make it like the image on the left, which is EXACTLY the image that Lancome paid a fortune to Julia, the hair and makeup person, the photographer and the retoucher for. IT is exactly the image they wanted to portray and promote their company.
Your approval I doubt, hardly entered their minds at the time they released this picture to the world.
With the people on the set that day which was probably between ten and twenty would include, photographer and a few assistants, people from Lancome, people from Lancome advertising agency, art director, set director, PR people, clothing people, hairdresser, makeup person, nail person, Julia's assistants, craft services (catering)and a few hangers on. The production would have started around 9 in the morning, with Julia arriving at 10, and shooting maybe 2 hours later. With wardrobe and makeup changes depending on what the art director has set up would last to maybe 4 in the afternoon with intermittent shots taken between wardrobe and setups. Maybe longer.
The camera would have been tethered to a computer with the art director and Lancome people monitoring each shot and the photographer conferring with them after every few shots.
After the day is done the art director and the photographer would work on post production which would include retouching and a number of approvals and changes all they way up the food chain of Lancome.
In all probably about a $100,000 dollar day not counting Julia's millions of dollars paid as the face of Lancome for the term of her contract.
As I said previously, these magazines are selling fantasy. Harlequin romances sell in the millions not for their true grit of human life but for fantasy and escapism. Fashion is no different.