Oct 9 2008, 2:04 pm
|
|
The dark prince majin vegeta
 |
Again, that's a matter of opinion.
|
Bootyboy wrote:
Do you honestly believe that Newsweek made her look unattractive? Again, that's not the argument! Here are the facts: 1.) Retouching photos on magazines like this happens by default, and is the absolute standard for close ups. 2.) It's not a question of whether or a person needs retouching; all photos are retouched to remove normal human imperfections. 3.) Sarah Palin's photo was not retouched, which was a conscious decision by the magazine, intended to make her look worse. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Bootyboy wrote: Oh Fuck, my highschool pictures were not retouched... MY HIGHSCHOOL IS OUT TO GET ME! | |
SilkWizard wrote:
3.) Sarah Palin's photo was not retouched, which was a conscious decision by the magazine, intended to make her look worse. This final piece of the logic chain is faulty. How does not retouching a photo establish intent to make her look worse? It's a far more valid argument to say that their intent was to accentuate her natural beauty. It was a bold risk, and they were successful. You should be applauding Newsweek for accomplishing that, not feigning outrage over it. | |
Venom Development wrote:
Oh Fuck, my highschool pictures were not retouched... MY HIGHSCHOOL IS OUT TO GET ME! > SilkWizard wrote: 1.) Retouching photos on magazines like this happens by default, and is the absolute standard for close ups. | |
SilkWizard wrote:
Venom Development wrote: 2/10 for effort - See me after class | |
Bootyboy wrote:
It's a far more valid argument to say that their intent was to accentuate her natural beauty. It was a bold risk, and they were successful. You should be applauding Newsweek for accomplishing that, not feigning outrage over it. I need to buy you a dictionary, as "feigning" seems to be your favorite word, yet you don't understand its proper use! Also, why does every discussion with you seem to go around in circles? As far as the logic chain goes, how did you get the idea that not retouching her photo was a compliment?! We've established that retouching photos like this is standard practice in order to make a person look better. We've established that Sarah Palin's photo was not retouched. Therefore, Newsweek made an intentional decision to let flaws that are normally retouched show through. This was not a compliment to Sarah Palin, but a slap in the face. I'm not getting dragged down into repeating myself over and over again on this with you! I'm out! | |
Venom Development wrote:
2/10 for effort - See me after class I'll take your nonsensical reply as an admission that I'm right :) | |
SilkWizard wrote:
I need to buy you a dictionary, as "feigning" seems to be your favorite word, yet you don't understand its proper use! Also, why does every discussion with you seem to go around in circles? Ok whatever... the facts are this is a presidential election, not a beauty pageant... She could look like the elephant man and nothing would change so not making her look better then she already looks doesnt really matter at all, the readers are still the same audience. (really sorry for grammer errors, its late here in england :() | |
SilkWizard wrote:
>As far as the logic chain goes, how did you get the idea that not retouching her photo was a compliment?! Recall from another comment I had made: 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. We've established that retouching photos like this is standard practice in order to make a person look better. We've established that Sarah Palin's photo was not retouched. Therefore, Newsweek made an intentional decision to let flaws that are normally retouched show through. This was not a compliment to Sarah Palin, but a slap in the face. It clearly is not. She's naturally a beautiful woman, and that cover exposed that. What is wrong with showing how naturally beautiful a person is? It might have even been more effective if she hadn't had any makeup on. Because an arbitrary standard of photography wasn't applied does not mean any nefarious intent. Surely you have broken protocol on something in your life because you wanted to take a risk; not because of evil intent? I mean, should we then assume if you, and I mean you specifically, go against any protocol, we should assume nefarious intent? I would never assume that about you, and neither should you assume that about any one else. I'm not getting dragged down into repeating myself over and over again on this with you! I'm out! :( | |
Wait, I just noticed this was from Faux News. I'm pretty sure they lost the ability to be accurate on anything about six or seven years ago.
| |