See other 4play Articles
Title: My brush with absolute perfection
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/m ... .xml&DCMP=ILC-traffdrv07053100
Published: Aug 18, 2007
Author: Bryony Gordon
Post Date: 2007-08-18 16:56:01 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 89
Comments: 3
Celebrities aren't the only ones having their photographs enhanced - these days, everybody's doing it. Which was all the excuse Bryony Gordon needed… Pity the poor girl on the left. Slightly stocky, spotty and slouching, she should really put some make-up on, get her hair done and think about losing a few pounds. Bryony Gordon: a Facebook profile picture to die for? But the girl on the right… you're wolf-whistling, aren't you? With legs that go on forever and curves in all the right places, her skin is creamy and clear and her hair bright and glossy. And guess what? That girl is me. Unfortunately, so is the one on the left. Even more unfortunately, the one on the left is the real me, while the girl on the right is a stretched, airbrushed and digitally ''enhanced'' version of me. A fake me, if you like. The manipulation of photos is a given in the image-is-everything world of celebrity. Earlier this week, the Duchess of York appeared in Italian Vogue. With a tiny waist, sculptured cheekbones and a wrinkle-free face, she bore no relation to the frumpy Fergie who looked every one of her 47 years when papped out jogging recently. When the Rubenesque Kelly Osbourne appeared in posters promoting her role in the musical Chicago, she looked far leaner than she had days earlier when photographed in New York. The latest ''official'' pictures of Britney Spears are so far removed from the shorn-headed, puffy reality that crueller critics have concluded that it was either a master airbrusher at work or a body double. Politicians are getting in on the act, too: the pictures of Tony Blair in the current issue of American Men's Vogue make him appear remarkably fresh-faced for a man who led his country for 10 years. In fact, we have become so accepting of the practice that we're increasingly keen to digitally enhance our own mundane, non-celebrity lives, too. While it's easy to refine the colour of the sky on a home computer through Photoshop, slimming down one's thighs is a slightly more complex procedure. So last year Snappy Snaps launched an airbrushing service for customers who want to improve their holiday pictures without having to bother going on a diet or having a complete overhaul at a beauty salon. For a mere £10, love handles and wobbly bits can be removed from bikini shots, dark circles can be lightened and legs lengthened. The service has proved incredibly popular; there has been a 550 per cent increase in requests for it in the past three months alone. The rise of social networking sites such as Facebook are partly responsible. Users and their friends can post pictures of themselves on to their profiles for all to see. In a way, we're all celebrities now. Shamefully, I currently have 70 pictures of myself on my Facebook profile, and have deleted at least 10 that friends posted of me because I think I look a bit ropey in them. Anna Holmes, the managing editor of Jezebel, a celebrity gossip website based in New York that has the tagline ''celebrity, sex, fashion… without the airbrushing'', says she has heard of parents retouching photos of their children to make them look cuter or more angelic. "That's disturbing but it doesn't surprise me that it's a growing trend with those of us who aren't famous. I think we have become pretty self-obsessed and we spend a lot more time reading magazines full of celebrities. People know how to pose now. Perhaps airbrushing is just a poor woman's plastic surgery." Jezebel recently offered $10,000 (£5,000) to anyone who could supply it with the most touched-up cover. The winner was the American magazine Redbook's cover of the country singer Faith Hill, looking markedly younger than her 39 years, yet slightly freakish. "In the before picture she was smiling with her eyes and looked happy," says Holmes. "By the time she was on the cover she just looked dead inside." But what harm could a little photographic tweaking do? Why shouldn't we be afforded the same luxuries as Hollywood starlets? With that in mind, I headed off with my ''before'' photograph to Size Creative, a professional retouch company that has ''amended'' Halle Berry's bikini for an FHM cover shot and turned Prince William's skin black for a Marie Claire feature. It has done ''work'' on Coleen McLoughlin, Bono and Kate Moss. Could it work miracles and give me a Facebook profile picture to die for? The man charged with making me a supermodel is Steve Crozier, who spends his days in a darkened studio ''enhancing'' the features of celebrities, catwalk stars and… cars (I should be fine, then). Crozier tells me that as people have got wiser to the practice of airbrushing, it has had to become more subtle - he cites the case of Kate Winslet, who kicked up an almighty fuss after GQ dramatically thinned her thighs for a cover shot several years ago. "It's my job to make sure that the picture looks as if it hasn't been retouched. If you go too crazy, the subjects will get cross." There are exceptions, of course. Crozier tells me about the time he received a batch of photographs of a very famous Hollywood actress. It took him hours to retouch and rebuild her clothes because she had lost so much weight. Recently, he was charged, in the jargon of the trade, with ''clearing up'' an advertising campaign for a large fashion label. The anorexic model had ''fur'' on her face (a side-effect of the eating disorder) which took him ages to remove. I am a normal size and I don't have a furry visage but I wonder how long it will take Crozier to sort out my face which, enlarged on his computer screen, magnifies every blemish, crease and nascent wrinkle. I look alarmingly weathered for 27. The tool he uses to eradicate these problems is appropriately called a Healing Brush. It seems to take an eternity for him to remove my spots. He "eases" the creases around my mouth. There seems to be a lot of "easing things out" - dark circles, my bloodshot eyes and my "gooseneck", as he calls it. He brightens my hair and defines my jawline before changing the colour of my eyes and lips. He then moves on to the body which, in its present state, makes me want to weep. He thinks that my boots are doing nothing for my legs (what is this, Trinny and Susannah?) so he adds different ones. He squares my slouch. He adds some shine to my necklace, and irons out the creases in my dress. "I am going to thin and elongate your legs ever so slightly," he says, diplomatically. "And I think we might give you a bit more of an hourglass figure." At first glance, I think I look pretty damn good. But a closer inspection reveals skin so flawless that I look like a cross between a porcelain doll and a computer animation. I think I prefer the slouchy, make-up free me. It may not be perfect, but at least I look vaguely human.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
(Edited)
I've basically had the same thing done. Not digital enhancement mind you but pictures taken with professional hair and make up. Does make a difference. We've all seen those photos of celebs aunatural. Yikes.
I can't decide if this is sick, or just stupid. Has everyone gone bonkers?
'Vaguely human' might get you some sex now and then...with the lights out, of course.
Unfortunately, so is the one on the left. Even more unfortunately, the one on the left is the real me, while the girl on the right is a stretched, airbrushed and digitally ''enhanced'' version of me. A fake me, if you like.
#2. To: christine (#0)
#3. To: christine (#0)
It may not be perfect, but at least I look vaguely human.
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest