SA Footy

This article from Adelaide Now discusses the latest photo shoot of Stephanie Rice in Inside Sport, and how there were elements of airbrushing the shots to enhance her look.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 85,00.html

It was recently proposed that a voluntary code of practice would be considered by a number of UK magazine editors, disclosing when airbrushing had occurred in a photo

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp ... =40739&c=1

What are people's thoughts in general about whether this sort of thing should be disclosed? For what its worth, the shot of Stephanie on the left is as she naturally is and looks healthy and normal. It would be a worry if there was more trend toward airbrushing, particularly drawing more pressure upon young women to look like models in pictures, who often don't look exactly what is depicted.

Good point CK.
But don’t stop at airbrushing, let’s ban all make-up.

1) Little critters won’t be tortured by testing.
2) A bloke can see what he’s really getting.
3) Might get something decent on late night TV !

Airbrushing would be mandatory if you took a photo of me...

As someone who is forced by the Mr's and Miss to watch America's next top model and Australia's next top model on fox(they think the one on 7 is crap).Let me assure you they airbrush just about everything.
In this weeks America's Next top model they told one of the girls (she's not a lesbian but dates girls ).That Tattoos are not the best thing for models to have but they would not this week airbrush out the Tattoo on her arm.
And one girl from a past show when photographed never had freckles but when shown on ET had a face full of freckles.

On a side note the pre operation TG person in this cycles show. What are they airbrushing in her/his shots .

spell_check wrote:Airbrushing would be mandatory if you took a photo of me...

Same with me, I need wide angle as well

If magazines had to disclose every bit of airbrushing there wouldn't be any room for articles.

Every single photo - especially cover stories and the like - is airbrushed.

Hell, most movies are these days, too!

mick wrote:

spell_check wrote:Airbrushing would be mandatory if you took a photo of me...

Same with me, I need wide angle as well

In fact, the "light is not your friend" would be better, that would get around the disclosure of airbrushing. ;)

On topic Stephanie Rice does not need any airbrushing. She is just wonderful to look at

pafc1870 wrote:

Lucky bitch

I don't mind if a photo is airbrushed. We all know it's airbrushed. If it makes the person in the photo feel better, hurray for them. If it makes the magazine publishers feel like their awesome airbrushed people are going to sell them more magazines, good for them too.

I DO mind it when people (like Jennifer Hawkins) gallantly take the plunge and submit themselves to being photographed with no airbrushing, then make a huge deal out of it. Apparently this is supposed to make us feel better about our flaws. Well, I'm not perfect, and yeah, I'd like to be a bit taller and I'd like to have bigger eyes so they don't squinch into tiny little red piggy things when I cry and I'd like to get rid of that scar on my chin from falling off my bike when I was eight... BUT most of the time I don't actually feel too bad about any of this, or even think about it all that often, until I get it rubbed in my face that Jennifer Hawkins is embracing her flaws on the cover of Ralph or Cosmo or whatever, for the purpose of making me and all my fellow inferior genetic specimens feel better about everything that's wrong with us.