Uh, hello, Sarah Palin is a babe. Oh the travesty.
"Clear slap in the face"
"Shocked and horrified"
"What's wrong with showing women the way they actually look, particularly a woman as beautiful as Sarah Palin."
Oct 9 2008, 8:29 am
|
|
Yammen
 |
I'd hit it
|
I think that people seem to forget that we are supposed to elect leaders on how well they will manage, not how good they look.
I don't give a damn how hot she is, or isn't, it wont change my vote. | |
More fake outrage from a fake news source?
| |
Julia Piscitelli is fat. >.>
| |
This is just getting silly, totally making somthing out of nothing, There is a financial crisis in the world right now and there arguing if her's and obama's picture has been a victim of photoshop...
| |
Didn't look that bad to me, not like she had a huge glaring red pimple or something so I guess its still just a slap in the face.
| |
It's just people wanting to be the victim of "domestic terrorists".
PS: http://obama.3cdn.net/fac9c3b8a898ab7fbb_wv3mv2zeb.jpg Uh....that's not reatouched. | |
...
| |
Actually, I have to tell you, this is a very big deal in terms of media coverage.
As someone who works in the industry, I can tell you that the fact that this photo wasn't retouched was an intentional decision that had to pass through many hands. There is only one reason why it wouldn't be retouched, and that's to make her look bad. Retouching photos is absolutely standard, especially on close ups like this. Their outrage is completely justified. As women who work in the industry, they understand just how much of a slight this photo not being retouched is... and there is no chance that it was an oversight or a mistake. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
There is only one reason why it wouldn't be retouched, and that's to make her look bad. Are you saying she looks bad? Dude, I have the magazine in front of me; she's a gorgeous woman. | |
That's a matter of opinion.
| |
Bootyboy wrote:
Are you saying she looks bad? Dude, I have the magazine in front of me; she's a gorgeous woman. I'm not making a judgment either way, as that's not the reason they were outraged. They were outraged because the photo should have been retouched, and intentionally wasn't retouched. Whether or not it ended up making her look bad is a completely separate debate! | |
SilkWizard wrote:
I'm not making a judgment either way, as that's not the reason they were outraged. They were outraged because the photo should have been retouched, and intentionally wasn't retouched. Whether or not it ended up making her look bad is a completely separate debate! If was their intent was to make her look ugly, that would be epic fail #2. I mean seriously, EPIC fail. I mean, you'd have to do substantial retouching to make her look unattractive. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
I mean, you'd have to do substantial retouching to make her look unattractive. I agree. That said, even the most beautiful woman in the world has plenty of normal human facial imperfections, which is why retouching is always standard on stuff like this (especially extreme CUs!) | |
SilkWizard wrote:
I agree. That said, even the most beautiful woman in the world has plenty of normal human facial imperfections, which is why retouching is always standard on stuff like this (especially extreme CUs!) I suppose for models or entertainers it would affect their marketability if their looks were somehow compromised. But, for a vice-presidential candidate, how does the lack of retouching affect their candidacy? I mean heavens forbid, McCain/Palin just lost two points in the polls because women noticed a small amount of crow's feet near her eyes. It is, after all, a more important issue than the economy. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
I suppose for models or entertainers it would affect their marketability if their looks were somehow compromised. ed a small amount of crow's feet near her eyes. It is, after all, a more important issue than the economy. Are you saying that a person's attractiveness doesn't factor in to their likability? I think that whether it's right or wrong, we can both agree that a person's outward appearance absolutely affects what people think of them. If they drew a mustache on Sarah Palin, that would have an effect on perception. If they made her eyes glow red, that would have an effect on perception. That said, how many votes gained/lost this translates into isn't the point. The intentions behind this photo not being retouched are disgusting and reprehensible, and that is what those women in the video you posted are outraged over. Something similar happened to McCain last month, and the liberal photographer openly admits to it (and is even proud of it!) | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Are you saying that a person's attractiveness doesn't factor in to their likability? I think that whether it's right or wrong, we can both agree that a person's outward appearance absolutely affects what people think of them. What you are suggesting is what you've already debunked. Newsweek failed in making Sarah Palin look unattractive. To reduce Palin's likability would have required negative retouching which clearly did not happen. If they drew a mustache on Sarah Palin, that would have an effect on perception. If they made her eyes glow red, that would have an effect on perception. But they didn't. They left a natural look, and from my eyes (and probably most guys with testosterone in their blood) would say that she looks stunning. That said, how many votes gained/lost this translates into isn't the point. The intentions behind this photo not being retouched are disgusting and reprehensible She does not look disgusting or reprehensible... what picture are you looking at? Again, if the intentions were to make her look disgusting and unattractive, you would have had to given her a mustache or make her eyes glow. This clearly did not happen. Something similar happened to McCain last month, and the liberal photographer openly admits to it (and is even proud of it!) There are some fascinating YouTube videos with folks using PhotoShop to really shnazz up pedestrian looking folks. It's quite an art form. That being said, the link you provided was digitally altered and had purposeful lighting to make McCain look much worse than he really appeared. This is CLEARLY different than the Newsweek cover. Palin looks very authentic and beautiful at the same time; she's about a decade or so older than me and if that was the face that you would go to bed seeing, you'd be a very lucky man. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
What you are suggesting is what you've already debunked. Newsweek failed in making Sarah Palin look unattractive. To reduce Palin's likability would have required negative retouching which clearly did not happen. Wrong. We're not arguing whether or not Palin is attractive; we're talking about whether or not the intent was to make her look less attractive. The answer to that question is yes. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Wrong. We're not arguing whether or not Palin is attractive; we're talking about whether or not the intent was to make her look less attractive. The answer to that question is yes. The answer is clearly no. To intentionally make her look unattractive would be to photoshop a convincing mustache. The intent of the cover was to show how naturally beautiful she is. Do you honestly believe that Newsweek made her look unattractive? | |