reply to post by PsykoOps
I think it's quite safe to rely on the technical judgment and definitions of the industry itself.
What we're talking here is an ensemble of techniques that cannot be confused with simple cropping and other preliminary (pre-publishing) editing.
Its only purpose is to
alter (not just "enhance", even though this cute euphemism if often used instead) the appearance of the subject(s) in
such a way that the subject(s)' physical appearance - including measurements, etc. - becomes substantially different from their "live"
appearance.
(I'll refer anyone who is interested in this to the recent cover photos featuring Angelina Jolie and, even more recently, Kate Winslet or Jennifer
Aniston, where you can see that individual features - such as the nose - were altered in size and proportion to the rest of the face, while the body
was visually lengthened and "slimmed" down.
Sorry, I don't have any links ready.
)
And, as I said before, personally I couldn't care less about this.
But considering the incredible (although understandable) lack of insight on the part of many bedazzled readers, it would be only fair to include a
statement that digital alteration was used.
That's all.
LATER ADDITION:
About the huge difference between "normal" cosmetic editing and "airbrushing" (as opposed to simple "retouching") - and the relative importance
of this issue - see this article.
Magazine admits airbrushing Winslet's image
And this:
Spot the doctored photo
(The links were sent to me by one of my co-bloggers.
Thanks, Lynx!
)
[edit on 6-10-2009 by Vanitas]
