God Bless Kourtney Kardashian?

February 2, 2010

Really? Yes!   The voluptuous reality star came out swinging against a tabloid magazine for photoshopping her.

The starlet, recently gave birth, and had not lost the baby weight. Good for you Kourtney!


Kourtney Kardashian, Mason, OK! Cover 

OK! magazine is trying to say Kourtney Kardashian already dropped the baby weight and she is not having it. “They doctored and Photoshopped my body to make it look like I have already lost all the weight, which I have not,” she told WWD. She also tweeted: “One of those weeklies got it wrong again…they didn’t have an exclusive with me. And I gained 40 pounds while pregs, not 26…But thanks!” Kardashians really hate the Photoshop.


Breaking News: Newsweek Alters Obama’s Skin Tone

December 1, 2009

Newsweek picture

This may not be the best time for Newsweek to publish a study that is a social experiment tied to the skin tone of the President, not after his wife’s image has been turned into a monkey on the web.

From Newsweek: “According to behavioral sciencist Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, these differences in perspective may literally be a difference in perception. In a new study, Caruso and colleagues Emily Balcetis of New York University and Nicole Mead of Tillberg University asked a group of undergraduates which of a series of photographs of both Obama–some of them secretly lightened and darkened–best represented who he is as a person. The results were striking: while self-described liberals tended to pick the digitally lightened photos of the president, self-described conservative students more frequently picked the darkened images. The more you agree with a politician, in other words, the lighter his skin tone seems; the less you agree, the darker it becomes.”

Given this blog has focused on the abuse of photoshop in the media, this article struck my eye. While I don’t fully understand the need for such a study on liberals vs conservatives and skin tone, it does have some merit.

Altering images digitally can help some people see things in a different way. It alters the reality of what the picture was about. This study seems to exploit that.

It’s an interesting idea, but I can’t help but wonder if the study is showing the true difference in the two opinions, or maybe it is searching for a hint of racism in all of us?


There’s an App for That

December 1, 2009

Picture_1(16)That tag is becoming more and more famous as the iPhone continues to revolutionize the communications industry.

Now, there is an app to alter your digital images on your iPhone before you post or send them on. No need to wait until you get home, change that picture on the go with CameraBag.

CameraBag does not let you do as much as Photoshop will. These manipulations are mostly for novelty’s sake. They include the following styles:

  • Helga – Square format toy camera with washed-out highlights and old-school vignetting;
  • Mono – Smooth, refined, balanced black and white;
  • 1962 – Dynamic, high-contrast black and white;
  • Colorcross – Hazy, chemical color-swapping straight from the darkroom;
  • Instant –For the Polaroid effect;
  • 1974 – Faded and tinted;
  • Lolo – For vibrant, colorful shots;
  • Cinema – Dramatic moody coloring with a widescreen aspect ratio;
  • Infrared – A simulation of the landscape photography technique;
  • Fisheye – Wide-angle lens with a field of vision up to 180 degrees; and/or
  • Original – Self-explanatory.
  • The iPhone’s capabilities continue to grow. A program such as CameraBag is the obvious pre-cursor to an iPhone version of PhotoShop, which is rumored to be in development.

    Now, the ease at which to alter an image is going to only get easier, and very likely, more popular.


    BREAKING NEWS – Google Apologizes to Michelle Obama

    December 1, 2009

    For the past week, the number one picture of Michelle Obama on Google searches has been a photoshoped picture of her face and that of a chimpanzee.

    According to news reports: “Google had refused to remove the image from its picture search listings, despite complaints that it was racist, instead opting to run an ad next to it explaining its policy on how search engine results work. In a statement in the advert, the company said its results “can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries.”

    Google issued the apology after the picture was tracked down to a blog the company hosts. The blogger in question has issued an apology as well for the work.

    As a gay man, and Jewish, I tend to sometimes be oversensitive to anything that is potentially racist. However, I do respect satirists, comedians, and humorists to sometimes cross that line that may offend me. Sometimes I do laugh, more often I don’t.

    I’m not sure if Google needed to apologize. I am now worried the precedent that this could set. I don’t agree with the content of the picture, (I’ve seen it but will not post it here. It is easy to find) but I have to respect that someone wanted to create it.

    The idea is deplorable, but sadly, if this is a free society, we must let the stupid, ignorant bastards who think it up, put it out there.


    The Babies Are Too Fat! …. really?

    December 1, 2009

    For shame Parenting magazine! Isn’t it bad enough that teenage girls have inferiority complexes over the bodies?  Now, you have to get the babies in on the anorexia movement too?

    Ok…that may sound extreme, but this is just a story that will not go away.

    You thought France was crazy because of the photoshoped pictures in advertising? Well, moms have lit up the blogosphere over Parenting magazine having altered a baby’s picture because of some baby fat on the arms and cheeks.

    Are you kidding me?!

    Babies are fat! They are cute, and chubby and a delight to hold. They are supposed to be that way. But this magazine seems to want to put the newest generation in a fat farm.

    The story came to light in a new BBC documentary, “My Supermodel Baby.” (Soon to be shown in the states with the new title “My Parents Gave Me a Tapeworm for Weight Control Mates”.)

    Are the clothes wrinkled? Adjust them. Lighting bad? Correct it? Baby has one too many dimples? For god sakes don’t erase it.

    It would seem that the good crazy people who run the media will go to any length to be sure all breathing people can fit into the sample sizes at any age.



    Ricardo Rivera – Digital Dynamo

    December 1, 2009


    Ricardo Rivera

    In the ranks of digital media, Ricardo Rivera is a rising star. He has worked on many campaigns and events, all with social media becoming more and more important to their workings.


    As a media professional, he has some strong opinions on how digital technology can enhance and sometimes hurt a media campaign.

    Ricardo Rivera

    Media Planner




    “The perception is that photoshop is accepted,” said Rivera. “editors have been saying for years ‘shhh…don’t talk about it.’ but that is just unrealistic today. It has been going on for years and people have gossiped about it. Now, the use of photoshop is sparking debate. It can not be whitewashed anymore.”


    “The Ralph Lauren example was such an extreme. The company has the right to adjust a picture as they need to for a campaign, but the fact is they distorted the model,” said Rivera. “The public is much more savvy today. They are going to call you out on bad behavior or unethical practices in your work and ads.”


    “Take a woman like Victoria Beckham who has said she works out two hours a day because she does not want to be photoshopped in magazines,” said Rivera. “She has been featured in major magazines and ad campaigns for over a decade but she still gets photoshopped despite being incredibly thin and held up as the ‘ideal’ of what a woman should look like. It’s insane the lengths that are gone too, only to fall on deaf ears.”


    “Nothing should be sen as unattainable, but there needs to be some realism when it comes to body issues and perception.” Rivera said. “The case in France with the proposal of this law forphotoshopped pictures shows how crazy the issue has become. I don’t believe fashion advertising has contributed to the destruction of young girl’s health, but there needs to be a balance between what is realistic to achieve and the fantasy most advertising projects.”


    Demi Moore Needs Photoshop? Are you kidding?

    November 18, 2009




    Demi Moore. She is a celebrated actress, mother, and cougar. She works out, eats right and has an amazing body.

    So why did the editors at W Magazine feel the need to photoshop one of the world’s most beautiful women?

    If you look at the cover shot above, you can see that part of Demi’s hips seem to have gone missing. The model on the right is wearing the same dress and you can see her beautiful curves. Looking at the cover again, Demi is incredibly lopsided!

    On the left (her right) she has a curvy hip and thigh. The other side? It is just a straight line. Normally if a person was photographed at an angle this could be plausible. But this is a straight on facing forward picture. Her hip has just been removed. Or in this case, photoshopped out.

    Retouching pictures has been going one for years. No one would argue the merits of correcting some flaws. But this “correction” is actually offensive.

    Magazines have come under fire often in recent years. Most notably recently Shape vs. Kelly Clarkson (covered last month on this blog). But W has gone to an extreme here.

    Demi Moore is a beautiful woman. Why did the magazine need to mess with virtual perfection?

    Did they just need to create a headline? – DEMI MOORE HAS HIP REMOVED!

    I’d read that.