Thursday, 30 August 2007

Keira Knightley 'Art'

Keira Knightley and Artist's 'Enhancements'On the left you have Keira Knightley posing for a publicity photo for King Arthur; on the right, a digital artist's "enhanced" version. A dramatic sky with scarlet flag and fire arrows has been added to the studio shot, and the black rubber arrowhead has become shiny steel. So far, so good. But what the artist has done to Keira is ghastly: bust enhancement, tummy tuck and, worst of all, a fuller face that is unrecognizable. Her distinctive beauty has been turned into the bland look of a doll. Back to the drawing board, please.

2 Comments:

At 31/8/07, Blogger HellyUK said...

I guess depending on your view point photoshopped images (especially those of the female form) are either unnecessary and grotesque; or a justified means to market a product.

I tend to expect that magazine/ advertising images are altered. There is an argument against advertisers pandering to the idea of a stereotypical beauty, but if they didn't would they sell more movie tickets, face creams, beer etc...?

 
At 31/8/07, Blogger Coxsoft Art said...

Retouching photos is a huge, hidden industry, probably employing more artists than any other. I can remember it in the pre-computer days, when the high quality negatives of professional photos for advertising were six-inch square glass plates! And I've watched the photographer painting out any blemishes on those plates. Most of the old black and white photos needed retouching too, to get a sharp image, and retouching artists used to sit at their desks all day long with pots of white and black paint, carefully whitening the white bits and blackening the black bits! What a job!

Nowadays it's all computer imaging and pixel perfection. The artist doesn't need to handle a brush any more. Much more fun. And there's a Whoops button as well. So no stress as you near completion. Making the best of an image intended to sell a product is always worth the trouble and expense. Top directors and editors work on the biggest TV adverts.

As for the perfect female image, I can't see the point of hiring an expensive star who has her own distinctive brand of beauty and then retouching her face to the point where her uniqueness is lost. Hide her pimplies on the day of the shoot, okay, but to change her into a rubber doll. No thanks.

Did you know that both Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis at the start of their careers were told by the studio to wear false boobs? They told the studio to stuff its falsies, because they wanted to be actresses, not sex symbols! Good for them.

Thinking of Photoshop, have you come across Worth1000 yet? Well worth a visit.
http://www.worth1000.com
That's a community too. You don't need Photoshop to join, but you do need Photoshop to participate in the competitions. I joined just to get in contact with one of the artists. Can't recall my password now!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home