Originally Posted by blansky
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.