Digitally retouching a bikini model's photo. Check out the archive for more examples and don't believe anything you see in magazines
There are 9 reader comments
• Aug 09 2003 • 4:47PM
Why wouldn't they have simply hired a hotter model to begin with?
• Aug 09 2003 • 4:59PM
Probably because an ugly(er) model plus the cost of retouching is less than the cost of the hotter model.
• Aug 09 2003 • 6:18PM
But does any woman seriously look as "hot" all over her face and body as airbrushed photos? The bottom line is that it's unrealistic; all about projecting a fantasy image.
• Aug 10 2003 • 12:48PM
What's up the the nose family? Is that real? A joke? They all got nose jobs? Anyone? It's freakign me out.
• Aug 10 2003 • 6:47PM
They've all got false noses attached to their faces, and Greg apparently has made them look authentic.
I'd like to know the context of some of these ads/whatnot, though -- why does Pixar have so many dark, dark shots they need lightened? Why not render it right in the first place?
• Aug 11 2003 • 5:10PM
I especially enjoyed the digital retouching of the CAT shoe. Again, it struck me as strange that a scuffed shoe was photographed at all, but Greg's (Photoshop?) skills are, indeed, excellent.
• Aug 11 2003 • 6:22PM
Actually, I think she is pretty hot (untouched) --- anyone photographed so closely will have his/her pores and smallest of blemishes accentuated.
• Aug 11 2003 • 11:41PM
The bad lighting on her face was the biggest problem I had with the original.
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
Matt • Aug 09 2003 • 1:23PM
This guy's had a chubbygut removal