Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Make-up or Photoshop?

Richard Veryard said "Aren't cosmetics and airbrushing basically the same thing, or have I missed something? #Twiggy #Olay" in a tweet. (tweet)

I tend to agree. Both make up and digital work on photos will change the face. And I assume that you can do lots of magic with make-up. Almost the same thing as with post-production digital editing. At least in order to show a pretty face with perfect attributes.


Starting with the face at the top you can either take the left path - with make-up to "edit" face and then just camera to make it digital and be able to show it. Or if you take the right path where you create the digital image first - then edit the image of the face - in order to display. The viewer will not see "real" face in any case.

Editing before or after camera. That is the question.



  1. There certainly seems to be a functional equivalence between the two mechanisms for concealing facial defects. However, passing off one mechanism for the other is thought to be ethically problematic. Consumers of cosmetics may feel cheated by an airbrushed advertisement, because they want to know (and they believe the advert is telling them) the best way to hide their own wrinkles.

  2. But the consumers of cosmetic will not be able to what the 'platform' looked like. They will only see the end-result - not what it was applied on. So, there are no guarantees that there were any wrinkles to cover (on the model)...
    One could add a "Before"/"After"-shot of course. But then you might have to consider a video as well showing HOW to apply the cosmetics. And possibly showing if the model herself OR a professional crew is needed to apply the make-up.
    Is not every commercial about "cheating"? Not telling the truth but create images, dreams and inspiration?