Dear Doe,
I’ve been reading your blog for quite some time and I really love the way you inspire people to experiment with their appearance more and to embrace their inner self. But when I look at your photos that all are truly wonderful, I still wonder – many of them seem heavily airbrushed, don’t you think it is not exactly in accordance with your philosophy of being true you? I think it ok to retouch photos, if it is really necessary, but in some of them you look more like a plastic doll than a real person! I do believe that we all are beautiful with all our minor faults and imperfections, but pictures like these really can harm woman’s confidence, because in real life perfection doesn’t exist – that is why life is so great! :) Anyways, thanks for spreading the glee and inspiring us all!
Love,
Eva
Dear Eva,
This is an excellent subject and something I’ve been thinking about for a while. I see a clear distinction between altering reality for the sake of art versus falsifying reality where you should be documenting it. Retouching as a method of artistic expression has existed for as long as photography has been around and is perfectly ok in my book; selling skin medication with obviously photoshopped images is not ok – that’s cheating! Now that we got that out of the way, onto the actual point of your letter.
I don’t believe that being true to self has anything to do with posting unretouched pictures of yourself. Just like I don’t think that posting a picture in bad lighting or an unflattering pose speaks of one’s confidence. I’m not saying this is the case with you necessarily, but I’m seeing a lot of women accuse other girls of ‘photoshopping themselves pretty’ or even plastic surgery. They use the ‘imperfection is beautiful’ argument to make themselves feel better by convincing themselves that ‘what she’s got is not real’. But that’s not how self-confidence works. You should feel good about yourself regardless of how others look – in real life or in pictures. Women’s self-worth should not depend on what they see in a magazine or a blog – it’s something that comes from within and is developed independently, precisely in spite of what you see.
Lady Gaga: creating fantasy in Papparazzi (delete scene)
Growing up, I’ve always aspired to people who were masters of creating a fantasy. Michael Jackson, Alexander McQueen, J.K. Rowling, and recently Lady Gaga all possess the gift of building their own, unique, and – yes – entirely unrealistic worlds. Their art inspired me to want to create a Candyfuture world of my own. These people taught me how to believe, and I hope to do the same for others. If we had no dreamers to guide us, we would have no dreams; if we were only allowed to create reality, we would to stop trying and just accept the mundane.
I believe in dreaming so much, I’ve banned the word “reality” from my company. No one is allowed to say “That’s unrealistic”, or “The reality of it is…” or “Let’s get real” at Lime Crime. When people come in contact with what I do – makeup, blog, etc – I want them to feel like anything is possible and they can be whoever they want to be, even if they’re not quite there yet. A change always starts with the simple act of dreaming… It’s like magic. It’s like reaching for the stars.
Photo: Kencredible
My incessant need to create fantasy defines who I am and is how I chose to express myself. Photoshop is just one tool to get there. When I retouch a photo (or apply makeup, or wear a corset, or pose myself), it’s not driven by deceit or insecurity, but done to convey an artistic vision. And while I’m completely capable of appreciating the beauty of imperfection, I will always cherish the freedom to present myself however I chose to.
Deerlings: I know this is a loaded – some might even say controversial – subject. I’d love to hear your opinions, from both sides of the argument!
this has always been a topic of debate between myself and other friends and it wasn’t until i started taking film photography classes that i can understand and appreciate the love & hate. coincidentally i’ve changed my mind and think that photoshop (& other programs) are excellent tools – in fact most everything is a tool when it comes to photography: the model herself, makeup, props, clothes, etc. but what people don’t understand is that in film & movies there are also post processing that happens too especially when i’m trying to print a photo “just right” – i might have to dodge or burn certain areas.
i’d rather look up to you as a role model than heidi montag who completely redid her whole appearance. now that’s plastic!
I agree with you 100%. And the way YOU use Photoshop IS artistic because it looks fantastic and professional.
I just think it’s awful when people have no Photoshop skills what so ever, but “photoshop” their pictures to death. But those are the people who don’t do it for the sake of art, they do it to “look good on the internet”…pretty sad.
The whole photoshopping debate is drawn from the idea that an unphotoshopped photo represents “reality”. That is a misconception – a photograph is always, always influenced by the camera, the subject, the lighting, the angle and last but not least, the artist’s vision. What is commonly known as “photoshopping” (i.e., retouching) has existed long before Photoshop itself. I am an avid fan of Photoshop, Lightroom etc. myself and appreciate it as a means of turning good pictures into great pictures or even works of art. Mastering Photoshop is, indeed, an art in itself.
Besides, I’ve never been able to understand how someone else’s “perfection” – especially if one perceives it as “just photoshopped” – can harm another person’s confidence. That’s just placing the blame on someone else without addressing the real issues, IMO.
Hilde Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 5:24 am
I agree completely with this.
Sophie-Emmanuelle Reply:
August 22, 2010 at 6:05 am
Me too, I totally agree with this comment and the article.
Exellcent article! I truly resonated with what you said.
Photoshop is a tool.
For artistic needs.
Using it to make something ‘real’ is not its intended use. Where you said using it to make ad’s and photos for a skin medicine, is cheating.
However, take a look at this MM page, by photographer Tsubasa. Im a huge fan of theirs, their works are photoshopped.
http://www.modelmayhem.com/827253
Photoshop to me is a way to bend reality. To create mystery and fantasy.
I am a photographer. I don’t photoshop my images usually. However, I did once, and that happened to be a piece that toured with an art festival around the state.
[You can see my works here http://sayuriterachi.deviantart.com/gallery/ the image in question is not in there because it was lost as a digital file, rather as a print. I currently have no record of it aside from the original print that toured.]
I see it as an art. I know alot of people, like Tsubasa, who use photoshop to enhance, and create a story and new image with the program.
-Flip
Flip Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Here is Tsubasa’s main site.
http://www.artbytsubasa.com/
Wow you say a lot of “shoulds” in here. But the thing is, that’s not the way it is. Sure a woman shouldn’t be judging herself on perfection in a magazine, but she does. A woman should be happy with her body, but most aren’t.
When a photo is as highly shopped as yours, I think it’s clear to people this is not real and meant to be more of a painting or manipulation into a different artform. But some photoshopping, such as those on fashion or fitness mags, is not as clear to people, and it sets unrealistic standards for women. In fact, old techniques like lighting and angles can be used to manipulate a model’s body.
You can tell a person how they “should” think for years and that doesn’t mean they will start thinking this way.
I think you are thinking of a different type of re-touching here, because the person in the original letter said she had no problem with a little bit of photoshopping. While she did give yours as an example, your photoshopping is entirely different than what they do to Angelina Jolie on the cover of Vogue.
Chelsea Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I agree whole-heartedly with the first part. SHOULD is the key word. But most women don’t and it’s NOT just one magazine here, or one photoshopped picture there. It’s years of our mothers, and grandmothers looking down on themselves and years of growing up around the media as it is, and walking through the grocery store checkout line seeing magazine headlines on how to be beautiful if you lose a few inches, and the Cosmo magazines with busty women and their beauty secrets etc.
I think most women, if not ALL women, have had self-esteem or image issues at least at one point in their life, to say the least. And if using the imperfection is beautiful or thinking someone “photoshopped” themself pretty makes someone feel even a little better, then there’s nothing wrong with that. Even if girls aren’t actively thinking “Oh, I’m so ugly, and that girls gorgeous – but she used photoshop so that means she probably isn’t pretty and now I feel better” it may be in the back of their head.
One thought I had is that, in your case, photoshopping on your company pages or even in images on your blog may be a negative. I work in advertising and we do use photoshop at times. However, you are a start-up brand. The images of you on the Lime Crime site and your blog are selling the make-up but images of you are also a part of that marketing. If you use photoshopping on image on the site (I don’t know if you do or do not) or of photos of you on the blog, then people will not know what is real and what is not. This can call into question the products you sell, their color and their efficacy.
Even when you are doing staged looks you are always selling your product. If they look photoshopped or if people know you tend to photoshop your images, how will they be able to know or trust how and how well your products work?
Just some things to consider.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Well, you have met me in person – how accurate was I a representation? ;)
Poochie Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:59 pm
I know that you are lovely in person. But I think many other people haven’t and that may be a question that comes up. Maybe adding a disclaimer when photoshopping is not used (such as product or look pages) may be an option.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I understand what you mean, but I think a lot of people forget that the camera does not represent reality accurately and often needs help to make the object look like it does to human eye. In case with eyeshadows, if we were to take a raw image of a color, it would not be an accurate representation of it. It is necessary to adjust contrast, color and saturation to bring it closer to what it looks like in real life. In this instance, it’s done to help the consumer understand the shade better. As you can see, Photoshop is not always bad or misleading. :)
Cathrin Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 6:32 pm
That is so true, I used to have bright purple hair and it always turned out blue in the eyes of the camera.
I think that people that tend to look at photoshop with a negative opinion does not fully understand the program and can not really use the program them self, that is at least what I have seen.
It is one thing to use the program to lest say make your legs look like twigs and then state it as the truth, and there is another thing to fix up pictures to make the colours look accurate, take away spots that should not be there and so on.
Sure photoshoping can be taken to the extreme, but I see no reason to post pictures of myself with a bright red pimple on my forehead. It might make other people self esteem higher but it will surely not boost mine.
Kristi Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 9:12 pm
But if the camera can’t take a picture that does not represent reality accurately and needs photoshop, then its not a good camera, or a good picture, or there isn’t sufficient amount of light. Photography literally means a graph of light.
And its up to the editor to know when to stop editing.
Shannon Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 8:38 am
I don’t think that’s true at all. I have a really nice DSLR camera and while it does come very close to what the subject should look like most images do need a little tweeking. The only images I heavily edit are my nature photos for artistic reasons but I do have to edit other photos. If there are photos of myself and I had an ugly pimple one day I’ll get rid of it because it’s not always there. I also just did the photos for a wedding recently and the bride had an awful panty line! Imagine how that would look in a frame haha.
Chelsea Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 10:52 pm
To the “then it’s not a good camera” part, photography is NOT about equipment. And while yes, it is the art of painting with light, think about it – if you’re in a real darkroom, you’re using the enlarger and using light to work with your negatives. Oftentimes, the negatives aren’t perfect and you dodge and burn certain parts, and cross process and such. Photoshop is a “digital darkroom”. Yes, you can get carried away with it, but it’s 2010, and its almost doing the same things you’d be doing in a darkroom with other film. You can layer negatives and photos and play around to remove things and add things and change color as you see fit.
Renee Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 12:36 pm
You’re right – the camera does not always show the item being photographed correctly!
I do photos for my company’s catalogs, and have recently learned photoshop. I needed to in order to make the look that comes across on the web and when you print the picture the same as the item would look if you walked into our showroom.
I do this by photoshopping with the item in hand on my desk next to me, and make the picture as close to that as possible.
I CAN, and have for experimental purposes made the pictures look BETTER then the product, and am careful not to do so with sales images.
For example – if Doe were to take a picture of a look using Circus Girl, and the lighting make it look green would you fault her for retouching the photo? On the other hand, if it REALLY did look green and the photo was changed to make it look yellow, she would have some mighty disappointed customers when they got their orders!
Tokidoki Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I agree with this. I don’t mind photoshopping when it is for artistic purposes but if one is trying to sell an item or promote a product then I don’t think it is right. That is my gripe with fitness magazines, clothing catalogs (especially Victoria Secret’s…you can see the photoshopped cleavage and thinned out legs) and make up companies. Even make up commercials are so fixed in video editing nowadays that none of the models have pores or even smile creases. That is not accurate. And sometimes you can even see in mascara commercials that their lashes are not even real.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm
I agree with you about mascara ads – there are always false lashes involved, like we can’t tell haha! Probably because the actual difference mascara makes from brand to brand is so negligible, it would be nearly impossible to show it in a picture.
Tokidoki Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:46 pm
You can play the game “spot the fake lashes!”. Hehe Seriously though, it is false advertising. Some people may buy a mascara and expect it to make their lashes long and thick like in the commercial. However, more often then not they will be dissapointed when it doesn’t look like that. I am ashamed I fell for the Falsies mascara. It sucks. It was a waste of money for me.
And foundation commercials are the worst too. Especially when they are trying to sell a foundation that hides pores and doesn’t crease in wrinkles. Photoshopping pores away is not an accurate way in showing how the make up works. I know they are trying to sell their product but it’s not fair to prospective buyers.
Nutritionists have often been concerned with young girls health because of the way celebrities request to have their images retouched. I disagree that retouched and photoshopping are the same. Photoshopping is actually producing an image that has been heavily influenced by the application rather than just smoothing the skin, adjusting the color, or taking out blemishes. THAT is retouching. Photoshopping, is completely manipulating an image, so it looks drastically different. For example, the warp tool, in photoshop is often used to slim down celebrities’ bodies. Here is an example where photoshop has been overused: http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g162/casillar/photoshopped_girl.jpg Nutritionists have promoted the idea of putting a label below a photoshopped image, (which is 99% of the celebrity photos in magazines), stating, “That this photo has been manipulated to lower your self-confidence”.
Artistic Photoshopping is using photo-manipultion to create something like this: http://www.dphotojournal.com/wp-content/daily/image-manipulation.jpg As an artist and computer artist, Doe is merely just adjusting color, sharpening, removing blemishes and smoothing skin, retouching, not necessarily being artistic. Her original photos are artistic as they are, unless she’s photoshopping other clothing onto herself, or giving herself four arms.
Retouching and artistic photoshopping, a.k.a photo manipulation, is not the same.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:24 pm
I’ve heard about that and think it’s going too far. If we were to go on the idea of stating “this photo has been manipulated to lower your self-confidence”, we would also have to disclose that:
- The model is wearing makeup.
- The model is being lit and posing in such a way as to make her appear more attractive.
- And state that “yes, this model is naturally this beautiful – is your self-esteem still intact?”
It’s just silly – self-esteem cannot be developed on mass warnings. :)
Kristi Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I don’t think its silly. Some people can’t distinguish what’s real or fake.
Ashley Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:54 pm
As a girl who was overweight as a teen, I can tell you it isn’t silly. It’s kind of insulting to talk about it like that too. Images in magazines of girls with perfect bodies and skin really do have an affect. When I was 12 I didn’t understand that models were photoshopped in their photos, a lot of young girls don’t either. If you think that’s how they really look, why wouldn’t it affect you?
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Some people really do look like that – so what?
Magazines are only a small part of what influences our self-image. We encounter plenty of naturally beautiful people in real life, but we shouldn’t let that permanently affect our self-esteem.
Kristi Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:15 pm
But sometimes magazines are the only source for an influence of self-image.
We encounter plenty of naturally beautiful people in real life, but we shouldn’t let that permanently affect our self-esteem.
Whose to say that those people don’t have self-esteem problems too?
Dana Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 10:35 pm
But you dont really look like that. That’s the problem. I understand oversaturating color, adding unicorns, etc to give more of a fantasy image. But you literally retouch your photos to make it as though you dont have so much as a blue vein on your forehead. Why are you not comfortable with the way you really look?. Why does the defintion of your “art” have to coincide directly with “pimple-less” and pudge-free-ness and lack of baggy eyes? And what’s more, a lot of your photos that you publish here are ones you try to pass off as personal “today mark and i visited this place…” etc. It’s not just the people who are reading the magazines who have this unrealistic ideal of perfection, but also the model in the photo.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I would say I’m pretty comfortable with the way I look. There are plenty of real-life, unretouched pictures of me on Flickr, Twitter, etc.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1390245@N20/
Ashley Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 12:20 am
“Some people really do look like that – so what?”
Everyone has pores. Women over 35 have lines around their eyes. Not everyone looks smooth and perfect. I’m sorry, I have fantastic skin and I get compliments ALL the time on it, but I still have little flaws. When you’re 13 you don’t think about that though, you just see the pimples on your face and think you’re ugly cause you don’t look like Lauren from the Hills or Lady Gaga.
And the people who really do look like that also make young girls feel bad about themselves, just because we shouldn’t doesn’t mean we won’t/don’t.
I’m all for retouching, but some of your arguements are a bit biased. It’s awesome you have such high self esteem and so much confidence, but unfortunately not everyone does.
Jonel Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 2:21 am
I agree with you, Ashley. I personally think it’s biased to brush it off with “so what?” if plenty people are affected by it to the point that it changes their perception of themselves and what “beauty” is or isn’t. An example: eating disorders – a grave problem, and how do they stem? Media. Peer pressure. Though we should not look at models like they are what constitute ‘reality’, it happens all the time, especially if that’s all the media (magazines, fashion, ads, tv shows) is (mostly) popularizing.
Overall, I don’t think all retouching is art, or that it’s completely cheating. That would have to depend on the intent of the person retouching (there are a million reasons.)
Kelsey Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 10:40 am
Doe, there is a big difference between a girl who is naturally slim with non-oily skin walking down the street and am image of a girl who has been photoshopped down 4 sizes and whose skin has been healed and blurred until it looks as smooth as a dinner plate.
Saying that people shouldn’t base their self-image on media images isn’t responding to the point that this thread is discussing. The fact of the matter is what we as a society praise and surround ourselves with is internalized, and whether any individual person is paying too much or too little attention to that doesn’t change that it is our responsibility both as consumers and as art makers to think about what we participate in.
There’s a world of difference between adjusting a photo’s levels because it has a really good composition but the lighting just doesn’t show the makeup you’re selling with that photo to it’s best effect and massaging what’s supposed to be a snapshot into unreality. It’s a different choice.
Bea Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm
I think it is the parent’s job to teach their kid self esteem. Magazines shouldn’t babysit people.
I bet money that if Lime Crime had swatches of cosmetics where there would be evident acne and a moustache over the lip in all photos what would people focus on? Retrofutursit or Centrifuscia or Top Hattie? Or “Ewwwww the company is so unhygienic. They have a model with an obvious ‘stache and a cold sore trying to sell their products”.
So you doctor up a photo. No one is happy. You leave it as is to “keep it real”, people think you’re gross and unhygienic. If you try to sell makeup and leave OBVIOUS UNAIRBRUSHED FLAWS in the picture, once again where do you think the focal point of the photo will lie? On the product or a pus filled pustule festering next to someone’s lip.
I don’t want to buy my makeup from a company who doesn’t have the common sense to remove acne and hair from their models. I don’t need to be seein’ that. Just sayin’.
Natural beauty is a lie.
Ashley Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 8:16 pm
My parents taught me self esteem, but you aren’t always arund your parents. And when you go to school and you see the pretty girls emulating the girls in magazines and who they see on tv, it’s obvious that we are influenced by outside sources.
It seems that the debate is very onesided here. Doe, you are strongly for photoshopping and retouching you’ve made that very clear.
Alexandra Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I think that what you’re saying is based completely on opinion, Bea. Clearly your opinion is that there is no such thing as a beautiful woman without makeup or retouching(?), that’s fine if that’s what you believe but it isn’t necessarily true. I use a question mark because what you’re saying is totally contradictory.
The fact of the matter is that there isn’t always someone there to teach a kid how to like their body. Like Kristi said, sometimes magazines are the only source for an influence of self-image. That’s a fact.
Kristi Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Retouching
- Smoothing of the skin
- Adjusting color
- adding sharpening/or blurring
- airbrushing
“photoshopping” a.k.a photo manipulation
- manipulating the human body using the warp tool to get the perfection that the subject wants. (This is also how the weight-loss ads on the internet get the before and after photos
- blending two (or more) images together (whose to say that all photographed women we see in magazines were actually wearing what they were wearing during the shoot and not photoshopped on?)
Retouching and Photoshopping are not the same.
Bea Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 7:01 am
Actually, what I mean by saying that “natural beauty is a lie” is pretty damn empowering. Means that anyone can buy beauty with makeup, hair, surgery and photoshop, exercise and good old fashioned confidence. It’s more of a skill acquired with some smoke and mirrors than a natural state. And with the right conditions anyone can be beautiful.
I pity the fool weak enough to have their ego shattered because the model on the cover of Shape has jiggle free thighs. How are you going to make it through life if you can’t handle a magazine image? Cause frankly, when you grow up the real world won’t be kind enough to put warning label on everything. Coddling people isn’t going to fix anything.
Ashley Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 11:55 am
What about girls with eating disorders? They’re influenced by covers of magazines. Just because you think that we need to “suck it up” doesn’t mean you’re right. You have a very cold way of looking at this, obviously you love yourself. Congrats, you’re one of the few who does. But your attitude is hurtful.
Fig Taylor Reply:
August 30, 2010 at 8:18 am
Bea, I suspect you’re quite young; I pity you if you’re not because, frankly, you’re full of it. I’m probably the oldest person who reads this blog but I do so because I enjoy Doe’s gleeful, colourful aesthetic and like to support her endeavours, including Lime Crime, which I wear.
Anyone can NOT buy beauty, not least if they aren’t wealthy and particularly in a world where beauty is defined in such extraordinarily narrow terms – namely: young, thin, white and able-bodied. This ideal is not only promoted ad lib, ad infinitum by fashion magazines and on the runway, it is corroborated daily by the choices of Hollywood casting directors, and by advertising, including point-of-sale campaigns inside clothing stores. (No matter if a fashion chain’s actual demographic is women over thirty, or if their clothes are cut to accommodate those in double digit sizes, they remain stubbornly convinced it’s “aspirational” to show the garments on barely pubescent teenagers). This non-stop, largely inescapable, barrage of cultural brainwashing is designed to make women and girls dissatisfied with their appearance so they’ll buy more product in the belief it will take them one step nearer to that narrowly defined ideal. What’s more this takes place in a culture that’s extremely hostile towards larger women in ways both blatant and insidious. Many magazines actively encourage women to bitch about the bodies and fashion choices of other women to boost the confidence they help to erode in the first place. It’s unhealthy, amoral, pernicious, relentless and, ultimately, damages all women. Damage the mothers and they’ll damage their daughters in return and not necessarily in a conscious way.
I don’t have a problem with beauty at all, especially in a fashion context. But I think it’s high time its definition was signicantly broadened to encompass a far wider range of body sizes, body types, ages and ethnicities. And whereas I don’t think someone with a face full of spots is going to be a great ambassador for a face cream, I certainly take issue with your correlation of facial hair and poor skin with ewwwy grossness and lack of personal hygiene.
Poochie Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Technically it’s all retouching (I work in Advertising, so I’m using that as an industry term). Photoshop is just the program, although we use the term “Photoshopping” just as many people use the word “xeroxing” to mean photocopying.
Kristi Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 5:06 pm
No its not all retouching. I’ve defined the difference.
Soma Blue Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Who died and made you a dictionary?
JM Reply:
August 22, 2010 at 3:50 am
LOOOOL
I think photoshop is a great tool, and there’s nothing wrong with retouching photos – that’s what these programs exist for, to fix the little imperfections that keep great photos from being great, and for more artistic works create beautifully unrealistic pictures. However there is a limit to photoshop retouching – we’ve all seen news stories of models on magazine covers who seem to have their waistlines made twice as small as they really are. For skin imperfections, there are some cases in which people end up looking like their skin is plastic, and I’ll admit, I’m not a big fan of the look – I understand in some cases in which it’s done to make it less distracting in order to highlight a more important feature – makeup, for instance, but for most portraits, the plastic look just doesn’t do it for me, it flattens out the image and there’s too much contrast between the skin and un-touched features, such as hair, and I think the overall un-naturalness of it all kind of makes my skin crawl. But when skin retouching is done in good taste – say to reduce redness or cover up a blemish, photoshop is great! You don’t always have that big pimple on your chin, so why would you want to immortalize that image??
I tend to ‘live and let live’ and it’s all really just a matter of opinion, so if someone wants to make their photo look like they’re a doll, go ahead, but it doesn’t mean I’ll always like it!
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:14 pm
You don’t always have that big pimple on your chin, so why would you want to immortalize that image?? HAHA, that made my day! :D
Zanthia Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 9:42 am
lol I was about to post very similar comments; Jesi said it fantastically!
I remember a girl in high school had her senior pictures photographed and retouched by a professional. He airbrushed out a beauty-mark on her face, and she was FURIOUS! It might have been an “imperfection” but it was HERS and made her look unique! Plus, all her friends and family were very aware that she had it, since it was on her face EVERY DAY. Why try to hide something like that!?
The girl was so furious that she demanded her money back and then had a friend take casual, un-retouched pictures of her in her own backyard, and they turned out lovely!
Just an example of retouching gone wrong!
Tokidoki Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I’m getting a bit sick of seeing poreless photos in magazines too. Looking plastic works in some artistic forms but not all. For instance look at the last set of photos in this article (http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/25/celebrities-before-and-after-photoshop/). The unphotoshopped one looks 10 times better then the photoshopped version. I like seeing her skin look like skin and I love seeing her freckles. And if it was an advertisement for make up, the untouched photo shows it more accurately then the retouched one.
Alexandra Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 1:02 am
Freckles are adorable. I wish I had more!
“But when I look at your photos that all are truly wonderful, I still wonder – many of them seem heavily airbrushed, don’t you think it is not exactly in accordance with your philosophy of being true you? I think it ok to retouch photos, if it is really necessary, but in some of them you look more like a plastic doll than a real person!”
I think this reader has digital re-touching confused with good lighting. Speaking as an amateur alt. model, good lighting can DRASTICALLY change the appearance of a model and her skin condition in a photograph without any digital re-touching at all. Xenia has ABSURDLY good skin. Her skin looks nearly the same on her youtube videos as it does in her photographs. She’s just kind of naturally doll like. If you combine a natrualy doll-like person, with very good lighting you get a “plastic” or more accurately, a porcelain effect.
That aside, she never changes the shape of her body in photographs. If Xenia was photo shopping her photos to make herself look tall and skeletal, I could see where this reader was coming from. But she’s not. She always keeps herself looking adorably Xenia-shaped. Changing the shape of your body in photo shop is a lot more deceptive and a lot more potentially degrading to other woman’s self-confidence and body image, than covering up a blemish here and there, or slapping yourself on top of a rocket ship or a unicorn.
The whole appeal of Limecrime is that its based on a whimsical fantasy land full of color. So why shouldn’t the photos reflect that? And part of the appeal of Xenia herself, at least to me, is that she’s a petite, curvy, pasty girl of Russian decent… like me! :P She changes a lot of things in her photos to create an elaborate fantasy land. But she doesn’t change her body type. She looks very HUMAN and relate-able, at least to me. I feel this is very honest and commendable.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Sounds like I found myself a twin! ;)
Sylvie Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm
We don’t only speak about body here! We speak also about digital retouching of face on photos meant, in a way or another, to sell make up!
I don’t have photoshop (I’m poor) & it & gimp seem rather difficult to use anyway. I do use picnik though. I think it’s fine to alter your photos however you want, whether it’s artistic (I like using the different styles on there, like you can give photos a 60s tint) or to hide imperfections. Before digital photos I just wouldn’t display bad photos. The first thing I ever did before any of that (a few years ago) was using a simple editor I had & cropping unflattering shots. At first when my sister saw me doing it with a few party photos she said ‘That’s like your photos are lying’. Later she had me do one for her. Why would I want to waste a photo where I’m smiling happily with a friend because I look fat instead of just cropping out the part I don’t like & preserving the moment?
Photoshop is a plus. Is an extra work we do for making our pics looks preety. and its 100% OK.
We use makeup too, makeup is not natural and makeup is not being real.
we dont want to be real.
I love your pics and all the concept. keep doing what you do.
Its amazing!
I’m fine with airbrushing your skin, I just don’t like photos that are sort of “featuring” one of your products and are very enhanced, thus making the product look different than reality. Like the mimosa look, it looks….not real. I know it won’t look like that even if I followed your directions.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm
And this is exactly why I’m in the process of making a video tutorial – to show you that it looks EXACTLY like that.
It’s not all product, it’s also application – and application can be taught!
I think manipulated photos can be great for art, creating fantastical worlds, etc.– but prefer non-manipulated photos for journalistic purposes or other venues where reality is key. I think the closer “reality” is attached to the image, the more untouched the photo should be. So, for news stories and on-the-spot street fashion, untouched– because the purpose of the photo is to feel like you were there, seeing what the photographer saw. I think that type of rawness can have a real charm. On the other hand, fashion spreads in magazines are telling an imaginary story, so if photoshop helps to tell that story, great! The same with Xenia’s website– she’s telling the story of Candyfuturism, which is a place set apart from this world, so of course it’s not going to mirror “reality.”
That said, I remember being so thrilled when I first looked through the magazine “Cutie” from Japan. Even in the fashion spreads the girls were obviously unphotoshopped– they still looked amazingly cute, but in a very real way. Some of the girls’ legs had obvious bug bite marks. Not all of their teeth were fake white. But you know what? Because of their “realness,” they looked completely approachable. I could see myself wearing the clothes they were wearing. I was 100 times more likely to buy one of the dresses they were modeling than anything I saw in a TeenVogue fashion spread, as gorgeous as those are to look at.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:13 pm
In marketing, they call it the Relate vs Aspire approach. I am more excited by things and people I can aspire to, so my world reflects that. What you described would be the Relate approach. :) Nothing wrong with either, both appeal to our human nature.
Tabitha Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 4:32 pm
that makes sense! :) I didn’t realize there was a name for it… thanks for sharing that! Now that I think about it, I really do enjoy ‘relate’-based marketing a lot more. But when it comes to other things like music and books and movies, I’m totally the other way around. Then it’s all “Go away Reality! Who needs you!” :)
I believe that photoshop is certainly an aspect of modern digital art, however, there are some contexts in which it should not be used. Since this blog can be seen as a marketing tool for Lime Crime, I do not think it is right for photographs of Lime Crime products to be photoshopped since potential customers could be using said photographs to judge the color of the makeup. Because you are currently marketing eyeshadows and lipsticks, I think that if you feel that you want to retouch the model’s face then that’s fine. On the other hand, you have mentioned in the past that you use lipstick as blush, so that would be an instance that I wouldn’t retouch since it is an example of the color of the makeup. So basically my stand is that retouching is a valuable tool, but in your case, I would be hesitant to photoshop any of the makeup you are trying to sell because I would be afraid to alter the colors that you are presenting.
This is a very controversial subject. My first response is that photoshop is wrong because of how often it is used for the sake of art and really who can argue with that? You may have your own opinion to art and what you feel art is but its still subjective and therefor cannot be labeled. Unfortunately you make art and put it out to the masses and you better expect the critics (which is everyone) to respond and often the response is unkind. My feelings unfortunately is that people use photoshop or retouching to make someone lets say a already thin model to look even thinner… for the sake of art? My problem is not how they make the person look better or worse but that they say they done so for art when this is clearly not so.If you get rid of a pimple in a photo is it really for art or to make the photo more pretty? Being or looking pretty constantly in photos isn’t my idea of being artistic.But if we were to be honest and say I get rid of pimples in photos because it makes me feel better than I can understand that, really who wouldn’t!
My last response is that if photoshop or retouching is being used for art than that’s great again who am I to say otherwise. If your gonna use photoshop or retouching for more superficial reasons (which is fine) be honest about it don’t say its art because your doing it for you and not artistic reasons. When it comes to magazines,movies,books and advertisements you have to remind your self they are not realistic, you cannot look to them to build you own self confidence.
Brittany S Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I forgot to say that I pretty agree with Doe. And if you Doe use photoshop or retouching to help better represent your company and the image you wish to represent your company with than more power to you;)
Brittany S Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 4:53 pm
*that I pretty much* oops^_^
I’m in agreement with Doe and most of the others on this, however I must admit as a pasty freckled gal, I would love to see some shots with more natural complexion. Not necessarily from Doe, just in general, as it seems Doe has just been blessed with fantastic skin.
I agree with you! Lime Crime is magic.
As you said, it is totally wrong to advertise medicines with photoshopped models or to propose unhealthy archetypes (skinny models etc).
You show many sides of your world and there are a lot of “natural-true” images of you in flickr, for example.
Personally, I see no shame in removing temporary flaws (Like acne, bug bites, yadda yadda), but it does bother me when you start, essentially, mutating the image of a person. Like when clothing magazines do, what is essentially, digital plastic surgery. That to me is a misuse of the program, because then you are actually creating a false image of humanity where you really shouldn’t. That’s one of the things I love about Doe, is that she never alters what’s permanent about herself (i.e., her body type). She show off her curvy figure and meaty legs with no shame at all. And I can totally forgive airbrushing out a zit, because, really, who the hell actually wants to look at those, anyways? They’re gross!
I’m also cool with fiddling around with colors, so long as it doesn’t become flase advertisment. I do understand that camera don’t always capture what the human eyes sees, that can’t processes light exactly like the human eye does, so sometimes a little digital help is needed. And, besides, sometimes you just wanna play with colors, no shame in that!
And as for tweaking pictures of yourself that you put on the internet, well, lets face it, the net isn’t reality! When you post and image of yourself online, you’re basically advertising yourself, and who wouldn’t want to post a good ad? So, if you wanna crop out that bit where we can see you’re pudge, of get rid of that cut you got from your cat, I say go for it! Of course, as a said earlier, I do believe you should only alter the temporary faults, I don’t think someone should give themselves a nosejob via photoshop and act like it’s real. That’s just effed up.
According to me, except when used to produce really “unrealistic” and fantasy images, that everyone can recognize as obviously manipulated (=art), digital retouching, especially used in order to remove flaws on skin or change the features of the model, is simply unfair cheating.
Digital retouching can not be compared to the posing of the model, light, skill of the photographer, other techniques which were mentioned above. Those techniques are a handicraft, they require a know-how, an effort, and are almost an art in themselves. They enable to do “natural” enhancements or modifications. They axpress the artistic sensibility of the authors / models.
But when an actor / a model is digitally retouched to remove pores, wrinkles, to make lips fuller, legs longer, etc., please tell me where is the justification of it? Is it art?? The aim is to show the person more beautiful, flawless, slimmer, that’s to say an inaccurate and untrue image of the person, only to satisfy someone’s ego (actor…) or worse, to SELL products (magazines, clothes, make up, films…). I call this manipulation, and I begin to be sick of it, that’s why I (almost…) don’t buy fashion magazines any more.
Doe, you say that “Women’s self-worth should not depend on what they see in a magazine”. Of course it shouldn’t. But it does. Girls see those perfect images, those skinny models on the catwalk. They think themselves : “She is beautiful, I would like to be like her” or “Whow, ALL those girls have perfect skin. Why don’t I?”. You perfectly know that people with flawless skin are exceptions, the majority of us have small or big flaws. The vast majority of girls are not 1,70 m. tall with 45 kg weight. That’s why digital retouching is unfair. It should always be mentionned in a magazine if the image is retouched. Some girls are not even conscious to what extent the photos are retouched. Please see the link in Tokidoki’s comment above, to have an idea.
And then, representing one’s artistic views with retouched photos OK, but selling make up, even not directly, via retouched photos, hm…
That being said, Doe I want to tell you once again that I love your blog, your representation of yourself, your photos, your fantasy world, your intelligence… And I am not really concerned with the make up issue, I don’t buy many make up (sorry Doe!!).
Once again, you made a very interesting and intelligent post to discuss!!
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 11:01 pm
I think it’s really all about working with what you’ve got. Like you said, not everyone is a skinny 6 foot tall gorgeous girl with perfect skin, but I believe that every one of us has at least one redeeming feature. :)
Often they make them look worse after the photoshop – for colour accuracy and a clearer image I have no objections – it’s actually appreciated
Having purchased your product and and being an avid reader of your blog, it never occurred to me that your pictures in your ads or blog might be tweaked. And now that I know I still don’t care. The color of your eyeshadows are even brighter and prettier in real life. I have darker skin than you and I still get bright vivid colors. Its the best product I’ve ever used so don’t change anything.
Being a dark hispanic woman, I never saw a woman who remotely looked like me in a magazine, but I wasn’t going to let the ads or what I saw on TV tell me that I needed to have lighter skin or be thin. My mom always taught me that true beauty lies within, and no one defines who you are but yourself. Ads, Movies, TV are all forms of art. So if you buy something based off an ad and you are not happy with the results then exercise your right to use the return policy.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Your mother was a very wise woman. I wish more parents taught their children that.
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/
JM Reply:
August 22, 2010 at 3:48 am
I love PSD <3
I think if you need photoshop to make a photo look good then it’s not art and you have to work on your photography skill . If the photo is upholding with and without photoshop then you already have skill and photoshop is a way to alter your photo in a way that you simply cannot do with a camera.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 20, 2010 at 11:04 pm
I would have to respectfully disagree. Retouching has been around for as long as photography has been around – except it used to be done in the dark room, with chemicals. But yeah, all good photographers I know – contemporary and from the past – do some sort of correction to enhance their work and present it in the best possible light (no pun intended :)).
This is where I have to disagree:
“Women’s self-worth should not depend on what they see in a magazine or a blog – it’s something that comes from within and is developed independently, precisely in spite of what you see.”
What people “should” do or feel is beyond our control, and oftentimes, beyond theirs. A good case in point is Sesame Street – a program deliberately developed to show minorities and situations that were real. NPR ran an awesome story on it awhile back, including many heartfelt and touching stories from minority adults who remember it as the first time they ever saw anyone “like them” on television. How heartbreaking that children used to grow up without ever seeing role models with Asian, Hispanic, or other minority features on television. It has a proven, profound effect on children’s self-esteem, even through the teenage years. And regardless of how people “should” feel or what their parents “should” instill in them – we are all stuck with whatever quirks we developed in our youth. If you never saw people who look like you in successful roles, would you really believe in your own potential? How many of us are that strong in our identity? It’s a lifetime of conditioning that drags far too many people down.
Children and teens instinctively seek cultural cues on how to fit in and how to succeed socially. When the media only shows that skinny girls are pictured as “beautiful”(or white girls, or blonde girls, or golden-tanned girls, or whatever trend is popular), those who don’t fit that mold can be left feeling diminished and their self esteem does suffer – whether it “should” or not, it does.
So, in terms of modern marketing and media, I applaud the advancements we’ve made in diversity. We see models in every shade. ethnicity and hue. I think that body image is the next frontier. Even the models aren’t flawless, and kids shouldn’t grow up exposed only to unrealistic images of what the human body really looks like. Giant boobs don’t defy gravity. Skin has pores. Flesh pooches when you bend and twist. And beautiful doesn’t end at size 2.
Now I don’t mean any of the above as an indictment of the images here. From what I’ve seen, they run the gamut – some artistically ‘shopped, some lightly retouched with realistic imperfections intact, and awhile back there were just a couple from a tutorial that I felt were retouched beyond the point of being ridiculous. (These weren’t photos of Doe, btw, and no need to mention the specifics – I simply didn’t like one tutorial, no biggie).
For makeup, Doe is right that color correction is in order, and in advertising, smoothing imperfections is really a must. And even if you want to show “reality” with all it’s warts – your competition will make their models look better, and they’ll win the sales game that way. The makeup shots here are in line with industry standards, and I think they’re just fine.
For tutorials, however, I’d always rather see photographs without artificial smoothing and clearing, just to help me gauge the results to expect if I try the look myself.
Limespark - Please Feed the Bears. Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 1:16 am
Amen.
Jonel Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 2:25 am
Yup. Agree totally.
Ashley Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 11:58 am
This is the best answer in this blog.
Gia Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 12:24 am
This is an excellent answer, and I agree with many of your points. The only one I don’t agree on is this one (and trust me, I wish that I could!):
“Even the models aren’t flawless, and kids shouldn’t grow up exposed only to unrealistic images of what the human body really looks like.”
I think that kids DO grow up exposed to realistic images of what the human body looks like – that’s in the “real world”. Being a teen myself, I walk into my high school and see every single body type imaginable of people my own age. I think there’s some hidden part of people, especially teens, that sort of seeks out these unrealistic types to be a little envious of. Most teenage girls could probably relate to the feeling of finding a “girl crush”, a girl that we both admire and are envious of because we view them as the epitome of perfection in some way or another.
I don’t support this, and I don’t think it is something to support, only reality. We try to break from the mold of perfection while simultaneously seeking it out because we know it’s elusive, we know it’s rare, and we know that it’s not like most of us.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Hey Gia, long time no see! How have you been??? :)
You made a good point about teenagers seeking out the ‘unrealistic’. We all want something to aspire to, and there is nothing wrong with dreaming. The problem begins when persons with a poor self-image realize they cannot achieve perfection and start to engage in self-hatred or even self-destructive behavior. Most people have a healthy perception of reality and don’t even up this way, but of course those are not the cases that get sensationalized.
In the end of the day, I believe that poor self-image is primarily an inner-stemming problem that often gets blamed on the outer factors.
Gia Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Hey Xenia! I’ve been doing good – going into my senior year of high school (!) and trying to work on auditions for music colleges and conservatories!! It’s crazy but exciting at the same time. I’ve been following the blogazine since it’s inception…I am just a bit quiet when it comes to posting comments ;)
I completely agree about your points on self-esteem being an “inner-stemming problem”. I mean, I think it’s wonderful that so many women are promoting a “healthy” body standard for models – it’s just that the less realistic body type will still be sought out, especially by many teenagers who, due to their own lack of self-esteem, will try to emulate it. Dreaming is fine, but I think many teenage girls – and many adult women, might I add – will sort of skim past the “healthy” models in magazines and focus all their attention on the skinny ones.
Even in “real life”, this seems to apply. Many teen girls focus their attention and their envy on the naturally skinny girl in their school or group of friends because, through warped logic, they feel that if one of their “own” can be naturally skinny, so can they. I think that even if a waifish body type was not the standard perpetuated in the US today, girls/women would still seek it out.
So, in conclusion, the use of photoshop is not totally to blame for people’s self-esteem issues.
Ashley Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“In the end of the day, I believe that poor self-image is primarily an inner-stemming problem that often gets blamed on the outer factors.”
That is your defense in this stance, it’s obvious you are very FOR retouching. I’m not against it, but you seem to deny that it can have ANY negative outcomes. That it’s being blamed on it, when no, it DOES cause problems.
I think it depends on what the photos is for. You are selling a “look” and makeup, so obviously you need to photoshop yourself into what you wish you could look like in your Candyfuture vision. That is the purpose of the advertised looks!
If you were to do a “daily look” or “what I look like outside of Candyfuture makeup style” it would be cheating to photoshop yourself until you looked completely different! Touching up blemishes I think is ok, but giving yourself plastic surgery on the computer is just a lie
“They use the ‘imperfection is beautiful’ argument to make themselves feel better by convincing themselves that ‘what she’s got is not real’. But that’s not how self-confidence works. You should feel good about yourself regardless of how others look – in real life or in pictures.”
Slightly confused – I think what you were talking about could be interpreted in different ways. I do believe that imperfection is what distinguishes every individual, and that difference is beautiful in its own way, but how is this argument a way to make myself feel better? How is being perfectly confident with imperfections and going out bare-faced not how self-confidence works?
..Possibly the answer is that there will always be people who are pro-natural beauty and imperfection vs. those pro makeup and airbrushing.. and that inner confidence is to each their own. ^ ^;
reading some of the comments on this made me think of a certain person, Marina Diamandis from Marina and the Diamonds. she doesnt ever knowingly have her pictures photoshopped and still looks stunning. On her album are it has been overly photoshopped, as a show on false beauty. that gives the album character and meaning, showing people that photoshopping doesnt always make the model look ‘better’.
buuut, i agree that photoshopping pictures can become art, making things into what they could never be in real life. sometimes it could really effect the confidence of those veiwing these photos but yet other times it will make them marvel and maybe get inspired to try photoshopping. most people know that the picture has been photoshopped and that helps them understand that beauty is in the dreams of creating something outside of reality, what could never be is now something that could.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 10:40 pm
I adore Marina and her whole take on vanity and being driven to the point of insanity hahaha. I think it’s a pretty spot-on satire of our generation. ;)
kaiya Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 5:15 pm
thanks, i just kind of babbled :L
i love Marina too! her style is amazing and i woudnt be surprised if she was wearing Lime Crime, she’s that cool!
I think it’s ok that the photo’s you take for youre company that they have been a little bit retouched….they look more professional for the company…
If a make up company makes pictures of the models real skin, or with bad lightning…the make up won’t sell at all…
I’m not saying that models have bad skin..not at all…or that you have bad skin…not at all…but making photo’s a bit more pretty’er is better for selling.
It’s a hard world…but it’s true.
So i think that the person who wrote that to you…need’s to see that!
And btw, you’re photo’s are not even that much retouched, i think that you are pretty on youre own and with a good lighting you are more pretty’er!
I really like you images! I think you’ve got retouching down to an art! Please will you do some photoshop tutorials??
Doe Deere Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 10:38 pm
I don’t think I’m skilled enough for a tutorial! I mostly do brightness/color correction and smaller stuff like removing a blemish. There are some really awesome guys on YouTube though, I recommend watching those tutorials!
Lydia Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 10:33 am
You’re too modest :) Thanks for the tips!
Photoshop is cheating! if they had real skills in makeup and in photography, you would not need a computer program to totally alter their photo.
it takes the honor from real photographers away.
example: I went out, traveled.. looked.. and found a grave stone that said “bored” and EVERYONE was like PHOTOSHOPPED!! NOT REAL.
so.. yes.. photoshop is cheating.
not saying people who use Photoshop arn’t skilled.. they are.. but not in the same way at all.
JM Reply:
August 22, 2010 at 3:45 am
You do know that retouching has been around since before photoshop right?
“it takes the honor from real photographers away.”
What is your criteria for a “real” photographer?
“not saying people who use Photoshop arn’t skilled.. they are.. but not in the same way at all.”
I really don’t get what you are trying to say.
Melissa Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 12:57 pm
Yes.. but before photoshop people edited photos in a dark room.. that’s a lot more skill.
Chelsea Reply:
August 24, 2010 at 10:03 am
a bit of a late reply, but have you edited photos in a dark room before? Like photoshop some of it is hard, and some of it is easy! Dodging and burning? You take an object or a piece of paper and move it in and out in front of the paper. Have you watched photoshop tutorial videos? They can take HOURS of work, hard work!
Honestly, Lady Gaga ISN’T the UNIQUE fantabulous artist you keep boasting she is. She’s a bit of GREAT P.R, fashion designers, and a WHOLE LOT of copying other artists that came before her, famous and NOT (includes: madonna, “miss mosh” the model) I am SO very against her and despise the fact so many are falling for her false words and fax “originality” find some new role models.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. :)
Ashley Reply:
August 21, 2010 at 11:04 pm
“I am SO very against her”
Would one assume correctly you think she’s apart of the Illuminati?
Cause then well, you’re biased on this opinion.
Ruth Reply:
August 22, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Lady Gaga ripped off Hazel O’Connor and David Bowie more than Madonna…there’s a list longer than I care to mention. But I see her as having fused all these things together into something new, myself. Although she has yet to please me particularly musically, a lot of her style I really appreciate. I mean, I’d take her over most pop stars these days.
/derail.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 23, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.” – Salvador Dali :)
Chelsea Reply:
August 24, 2010 at 10:01 am
I have to agree on this somewhat. I know everyone imitates everyone, but I just don’t like how Lady Gaga gets tons of credit for being original and what not, I’ve even heard people say she created the avant garde movement going on and she’s NOT the first person to do so.
I haven’t read all the posts yet, but I was just thinking about how people used to sit for oil paintings and the artists were often told to or choose to make the sitter look their best, leave off a birthmark or make the skin look healthier or whatever! There is nothing wrong with this, as it is creating art to be beautiful and cherished and nothing wrong with wanting to look your best and be seen in your best light whether a fantasy or not!
There are other forms of photography which is more about capturing a moment or real life like war photos or something. Not every picture tells the truth some tell a very different story indeed! Its a bit rude in this day and age to think that women can’t tell the difference!
I think it’s just a shame that retouching and/or photoshopping is thought to be needed to convey beauty, realistic or unrealistic.
I think it’s silly how much time people spend criticizing companies for producing an unrealistic image for girls when they could be investing their time building those girls up with great self-esteem. What it comes down to is that everyone goes through puberty, and during puberty, we have many hormones and insecurities that no amount of healthy advertising can repair. The flaw is in expecting companies to instill self-esteem in fragile young women.
Let’s be hypothetical: if we eliminate underweight models and airbrushing (or the term, “photoshopping”, which has basically taken the place of “airbrushing”), promote a natural and healthy look (e.g. We have a girl at a healthy weight, little-to-no makeup, with a pretty smile), I can guarantee you that this healthy standard will still make someone somewhere feel BAD. Maybe the model has straighter teeth than the girls viewing the advertisement. Maybe she has a gorgeous smile. Maybe she’s well-fed, and not everyone gets to eat as often as they would like. Maybe her hair is curly or straight. Maybe she looks too happy. Maybe she’s on a safari, but not everyone can afford a safari! That could make someone feel bad. The problem is you can’t blame magazines for the awful problems that years of sexist society and culture have caused. That’s like amputating a guy’s arm off because he can’t control it with his Parkinson’s disease.
It’s also image. Not many people will buy makeup from a company who employs models with visible chronic acne problems. Not many people will go to a gym whose commercial members are flabby and overweight. If we weren’t inherently shallow in our choices to buy to begin with, we wouldn’t feel so responsible for the standards we impose upon young girls.
I dont think anyone is naturally as beautiful as the models that are photoshopped in magazines and advertisements Doe, I use to do modeling work and have alot of friends in the industry and the truth is most, if not all models are extremely plain. Ive seen models with cold sores All over their mouths and look utterly terrifying and have them completely retouched so that they look perfect, and its very likely alot of girls looked at them in magazines and said “i wish i looked like that” trust me you really dont. Models are plain because the blank canvas is ideal for makeup and who really wants to be plain.I dont know why you think that there are people who are that beautiful since as you said yourself its not real, just art.
‘selling skin medication with obviously photoshopped images is not ok – that’s cheating’
dont you use photoshop on all your photos on the lime crime website? isnt that cheating? ive seen untouched photos of lime crime makeup and it apppears very different.
Also the thing ive noticed is that girls fear being compared to all these images of women by their boyfriends or partners or guys they are interested in. most guys cant even tell when a girls covered in makeup nevermind extreme photoshop.
I think your being just alittle bit insensitive, you may have heaps of self esteem, good for you, but most girls dont, so your just making them feel worse by acting like ‘oh you shouldnt feel that way just get over it” or “i feel great about myself” nice way to throw it in peoples faces that they have low self esteem, it cant really be helped and people dont do it on purpose. i follow your blog and love your style and you seem really sweet but maybe be more considerate to the younger girls who are dealing with heaps of self esteem issues
As a graphics artist, I can appreciate the fun and functionality of photoshop. However, I feel if I photoshop all my photos, I am showing people something that is false. And I am building a false sense of confidence that will be shattered when people find out I am not perfect. I always show my nonphotoshopped photos versus my photoshopped photos, and can feel good that when people say I look beautiful, I really am beautiful!
I am ok with minor editing, like hiding a blemish, but I think it’s going too far when you change the shape of your body or hide things like freckles. What’s wrong with freckles anyways? I have a ton on my face, my shoulders and my back! lol
I don’t agree with hiding age either. The image that disturbs me the most is the magazine cover with Faith Hill. She’s a gorgeous woman and what they did to her is kinda creepy.
Hi, I haven’t had time to read all the comments, so I don’t know if this has already been asked – I’m off out any minute – but I’d really like to see how “perfect” you are without any photoshopping.
Or even (shock horror!) without make-up?
I’m not trying to sound bitchy at all, because I really love the ethereal dream-like image you’ve created, but because you’re such a promoter of being comfortable in your own skin I think it would be really interesting. Although there’s a time and a place for “natural beauty”, I just find pink hair and bubblegum lipstick to be far more fun! :D xxx
This is actually something we touched on in our blog recently as well (http://thenarcissistsdiary.blogspot.com/2010/08/airbrushed-blogosphere.html) – I can see all sides, and I think what it really comes down to is balance. I definitely think we need to be sensitive to the girls out there who struggle with their self-esteem (because we’ve ALL been there) and try to portray a mostly accurate image, but I don’t think we need to change the world of advertising altogether…because at some point, you have to take responsibility for your own sense of self-worth and not blame it on advertising. I don’t know if I was clear enough in my blog post that I don’t feel it is “wrong” to Photoshop pictures *to a certain extent.* I’m also a graphic designer, and photo manipulation is one of my favorite things to do ever – it’s fun!! Photoshopping could be compared to wearing makeup…it’s true that wearing makeup might not present a reflection of what we “really” look like, but that doesn’t make it bad, any more than it’s bad to color your hair, whiten your teeth, or pose in a more flattering angle. All those things enhance how we already look, just as a bit of editing does. Wearing makeup is fun and a form of self-expression that I wouldn’t give up for ANYthing!!! It’s natural to want to enhance your look, and it can make you feel better about yourself…what matters most is if you are capable of recognizing your awesomeness even without those things. It’s so important to learn how to feel good about ourselves independently of what others think or look like and be strong enough to realize that a lot of photos are edited and not let it get to us. Be inspired by others’ beauty, not hindered by it. Sure, it’s easier said than done, especially when you’re a teenager – God, I remember it clearly and wouldn’t go back for anything – but it’s something to strive for and typically something that gets easier as you get older.
We’ve all seen photos of ourselves where the angle seemed a little weird and we thought, “I don’t really look like that!” As a couple others mentioned already, even straight, unedited photos aren’t always 100% accurate reflections of reality. I try to post some edited pics and some unedited as well, and I’m also perfectly capable of posting no-makeup pics, to keep things “real,” for lack of a better word. I’ve also seen enough non-edited, no-makeup photos of you to know that your edited ones don’t portray a false image. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve instructed my fiancé to “hold the camera up a little bit higher and make it portrait rather than landscape!” lol It does bother me when a mascara brand blatantly uses false lashes in their ads (as they ALL seem to do, even though I think a couple companies have been sued over it), and if it’s something like a magazine cover where they’ve completely altered the woman’s appearance to the point of lengthening her arms/legs and elongating her neck and all that kind of stuff to where she’s no longer anything like a real person. But I can attest – because I own all of your lipsticks and some eyeshadows – that the colors shown on your site are completely true to life, and that’s all that matters to me when selling something. Some enhancing is part of advertising, and I don’t feel it’s dishonest in the slightest as long as it’s not taken to the extreme. People just aren’t going to buy products shown in crappy pictures…it gives them very little to aspire to.
The sheer fact that you have confidence in the way you look has gone a long way in increasing mine. There is nothing wrong with liking the way you look…which is sort of how our blog was created. :) I hope your readers will be inspired by your confidence rather than judge you for it.
Almost everybody on this blog post talks about Photoshop and Retouching as if the only human contact we have is digital. You say that girls have low self-esteem, they feel ugly, want to look like celebs, blah blah blah, but really, when is TV accurate? You may see Blaike Lively and want to die of shame cause she looks so perfect, but that doesn’t mean you will be thought as ugly because of her by your peers. If you are over-weight and have skin in need of a dermatologist, what you need is exercise, a balanced diet and said dermatologist, not a miracle cosmetics brand.
That said, one thing I absolutely love about LC is that the colors shown on the website match 99% the one you get. Of course it will never look exactly the same since that depends on your computer most of the time, but the colors I buy are the colors I get and that makes for a happy me.
Xenia has been accused of being vain and fake and so many more things. What I see is a confident girl who takes good care of herself, and is not afraid to look pretty. True, her skin looks flawless and her features perfect, but who’s to say that they aren’t? You are on a website that sells art people. That’s what make-up is; art. So is Photography, Modeling, Styling and oh so many things. And while I’m at it, do you know that the models who bash all the time have to pretty much starve in order to have stick-thighs? I’m not saying I like it, but it’s their job and mostly, their choice.
Oh, and, by the way, if you can’t tell if a picture is Photoshoped you obviously lack the necessary skill and experience and I don’t see why magazines should make sure you know that. When a brand of clothes has a shoot for their new line, they could care less about the models- what they want is to get the best result and sell their products. Duh.
You have to understand that all the hateful comments don’t come of as professional or constructive criticism, but as plain ole’ jealousy. Don’t like the brand? Don’t shop. Why do you have to bash Xenia and all the fashion world? If you want to look like those girls, don’t eat. And if I hear another comments about eating disorders I’ll shoot something. You can be beautiful and thin without in danger of dying and I’m sure we all know that. It’s just easier to hate something that to admire it.
i’ve learned so much with your blog and i’m not trying to question your honesty. But are you sure that image is for this blog? I really think your income for this blog is much bigger.
I think it all depends on intent — if you Photoshop/retouch with the intent to enhance the image, to help create an artistic vision, etc. it’s not a problem. It’s when you airbrush your skin, your cosmetics, etc. and then try to pass it off as the real deal, there’s a problem with that. Why lie? Why not admit it’s been retouched?
I agree with many people on this thread – you can’t sell a product or a makeup look that relies heavily on Photoshop to make it. There’s a difference between retouching the photo so that the image resembles the “true” colour of the product closely and then there is retouching your hair/skin/makeup to the point where you look “like a doll,” and then try to pass yourself off as always being “real” and “true” to yourself. If you want to claim you retouch yourself for artistic purposes, then say so. But don’t try to pass off your heavily Photoshopped pictures as you being absolutely true to yourself and your flaws and insecurities because you’re not being true to yourself. Photoshopping your insecurities away isn’t being 100% accepting of your flaws, it’s hiding them. I’m not saying hiding or retouching zits, blemishes, greasy skin is a bad thing, either. I’m just saying that you have to practice what you get so preachy about.
Doe Deere Reply:
August 27, 2010 at 10:06 am
I’m very open about retouching for artistic purposes – that’s the whole point of this post. But I also have no problem posting real-life photos where appropriate, such as from events – there is a whole album on Flickr. I think it really depends on what you’re trying to achieve, like I would never post a poreless picture of myself barbecuing or something. ;)
this is off subject, but does anyone know who makes Gaga’s suit in that scene?? It reminds me of this one which I’ve also looked high & low for to no avail!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/06/21/lady-gaga-shows-off-her-hit-b-side-115875-21458919/
[...] check http://www.doedeereblogazine.com/articles/photoshop-cheating-or-art [...]