Nothing wrong with that. You have more skill and credibility.
I think the problem lies in wanting to charge other people/organizations of problems which they are not responsible for.
Fried potatoes are fine, but they are not the healthiest food if eaten every day. It's not McDonald's fault if some people eat fried potatoes every day. If somebody is overweight, he should begin questioning his own eating habits rather then try to blame somebody else. If you are fat, blame yourself. I eat at McDonald's and are quite slim.
By the same token, the reality of human species, and lack or abundance of beauty thereof depending on which half of the glass we look at, is something around us for us to see. We don't see the world through magazines, we see it through our eyes.
If insecure teen-agers don't sleep at night because they have a new spot on their nose, that's not a good reason not to retouch spots on noses. Your spots are entirely yours and your problems with spots, and perceptions thereof, are entirely "yours". Teenagers should face their narcissism without blaming magazines.
If said insecure teenager gets a wrong perspective of what beauty is after seeing retouched images in magazines, said teenager has a problem looking around himself, and I would advice him to dwell into photography just to learn understanding the world around him with his own eyes first.
Good old porn films show lots of spots and pimples in every parts of human body and at the same time would teach said insecure teen-ager that absence of spots is not strictly necessary in life :-). They would also teach insecure she-teenagers that the very thin kind of woman is normally not very much appreciated by men. Just make a poll among your friends... just look at the magazines they read, not the ones you read :-)
I'm frankly astonished myself about how certain young woman which I find personally quite ugly end up having a career as models. Nonetheless, my definition of beauty does not rely on what a sissy fashion designer thinks beauty is (actually in fashion the very skinny kind is practical for a certain uniformity in wearing clothes which therefore do not need retouching on the person, it's an industrial need not even a case of search for a different kind of beauty).
If your daughter thinks Twiggy had any beauty, just teach her she stinks, and buy her a copy of PlayBoy . Twiggy just looks good for hospitalization. I remember the posters which were hanging in our classroom in high school. None of the models were underweight by any measure.
Diapositivo I have to agree with you. Personally I think models and young actresses are often too skinny and as you said there is a practical (from the industry's point of view) reason for that. Unfortunately young ladies seeing those pictures think that's what one *should* look like. Young ladies should be looking at female athletes to see what a healthy body looks like, not models or actresses. It's sad because being way too skinny is not good for the models/actresses either. With the Olympics going on there is an abundance to examples of what a fit person (male or female) looks like ... that is what they should strive for not Twiggy.
That's nice but your money isn't what's driving the body image business.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
So are you saying that "Thin is in, but Fat is where it is at."? I prefer thin, my girl friend is thin. For me "Thin is in."
Edit: Reality thin not Photo$hop thin.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Funny but Christina Hendricks "Joan" in AMC's "Mad Men," despite much initial panting, didn't launch or sustain a trend for '60s zaftig body types. Although naturally round in all the right places, she was padded out for the role and hasn't apparently been overwhelmed with work outside the series. Thin wins, again.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Fashion models exist on diet coke and cigarettes. They often are so thin they don't have a period. That is just the price they pay. Many have eating disorders.
Cameras add weight. That is a fact of life. Clothes look better on skinny models. They hang better and they flow better. Therefore models have to be 10 pounds less than they look in the ads. They are also often immature teenagers when they begin modeling so they don't even have women's bodies yet.
If anything they are as much a victim of the fashion/fantasy world as young girls/women looking at the ads. Oddly most models because of their body types are rather small chested. If girls/women are really trying to emulate them, why do so many women get breast implants so they can look like they're smuggling cantaloupes.
Marketing of all sorts is merely selling fantasy. If you are stupid enough to buy into it, without understanding it, that is your problem.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
You're absolutely right about people taking responsibility for what one consumes. Marketing and capitalism is supposed to make one feel inadequate. That's what makes some of us strive for the unattainable. It's a matter of choice of what we believe.
Yep, I remember when the Contax RTS first came out. Young guys who had been lusting for Nikon F2's and such suddenly were lusting for the RTS. They'd say it was for the Zeiss lenses, but it was really because the cameras looked so damn sexy in the ads. Most couldn't afford one, but that didn't stop them from fantasizing. I used to drool over the pictures too, though I was actually happy with what I had. Seems so silly now.
Originally Posted by blansky
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.