Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) okay, help me out here. Fox News is complaining that Newsweek DID NOT retouch the cover of Palin on its cover. http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/10/video-republica.html i am floored by this tempest in a teapot. i have this Newsweek. the picture is not unflattering at all. the commentators are complaining that her flaws were not photoshopped out but what they designate her flaws are the graceful signs of Palin's, or any woman of her age, maturity. personally, i hate it when photos of anyone are manipulated - it especially contributes to the false images of beauty perpetrated in society. is it just me - does anyone else find this unflattering? can women not age gracefully - which i think Palin is an excellent example of? Edited October 10, 2008 by Deidre in GA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 ?? She's gorgeous. Strikingly gorgeous, IMO. I wish I could photograph even 1/4 that good close up. It might be my monitor, but I don't see any flaws. Unless you call laugh lines and crinkles around the eyes to be flaws, but I think they show gentleness of nature. They show her heart, IMO. This is really a problem for some people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 This is a really nice post. I don't see a problem with it either. Why do people complain about silly things like this? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 ?? She's gorgeous. Strikingly gorgeous, IMO. I wish I could photograph even 1/4 that good close up. It might be my monitor, but I don't see any flaws. Unless you call laugh lines and crinkles around the eyes to be flaws, but I think they show gentleness of nature. They show her heart, IMO. This is really a problem for some people? that's EXACTLY what they are calling flaws! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TN Mama Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 How silly! I have to agree - I think she looks fabulous! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think she looks fine but its more a fairness issue. Everyone gets retouched. Typically, her eyeliner would have been softened and the shadows of her nasolabial folds lightened at the least. One can argue about whether or not magazines should but the fact is that they do. Usually. Just not this time. She doesn't need much retouching. Lucky lady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well, first of all, Fox News isn't complaining about the cover. One commentator complained. The segment also included a commentator who held the opposite viewpoint. Fwiw, I think she's beautiful, even close up. (As a photoshopaholic though, I would never print a close up like that without doing a little retouching.) That said, the photo itself doesn't bother me: the comment next to the photo, however, does bother me: "She's one of the folks (and that's the problem)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 She's one of the folks (and that's the problem Yeah, I think this is more of the problem. And the Fox commentator I heard also indicated that the problem with the photo was a "fairness" issue, but that the real problem was the "folks" comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Yeah, I think this is more of the problem. And the Fox commentator I heard also indicated that the problem with the photo was a "fairness" issue, but that the real problem was the "folks" comment. if at all possible, i was hoping we could confine this discussion to musings on images of women in popular culture and what is or isn't acceptable body image for us. perhaps i am just dreaming... the caption Newsweek chose is probably worthy of it's own thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I picked up the Newsweek cover this week while I happened to be wearing my recently acquired 1.25 magnifying reading-glasses (you hit 50 and bang!) and the effect was not a good one. Too sharp. And it seemed to me, rather unfair. Gov Palin is a very attractive woman, but being that tight, with this level of detail, with pretty unattractive lighting was not being "kind". I think you can "editorialize" with photographs, especially "covers", and I think Newsweek was editoralizing. No one will mistake me for a fan of Gov Palin, but (as I've said before) I'm not a fan of "cheap" politics either, and this cover is (at the least) treading the line IMO. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Lynx Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think it's a gorgeous photo, I much prefer unretouched photos, and I think Fox is insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think when one's post is about a magazine cover then all of the magazine and cover can be discussed in the same thread. I don't think we need to compartmentalize this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 I picked up the Newsweek cover this week while I happened to be wearing my recently acquired 1.25 magnifying reading-glasses (you hit 50 and bang!) and the effect was not a good one. Too sharp. And it seemed to me, rather unfair. Gov Palin is a very attractive woman, but being that tight, with this level of detail, with pretty unattractive lighting was not being "kind". I think you can "editorialize" with photographs, especially "covers", and I think Newsweek was editoralizing. No one will mistake me for a fan of Gov Palin, but (as I've said before) I'm not a fan of "cheap" politics either, and this cover is (at the least) treading the line IMO. Bill Spy Car, since you sign "Bill" i assume you are male. not that you might speak for all men if you are, but it's interesting to me that you find the photo unkind. i wonder how much societal expectations of what a woman should look like are in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Marple Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Unfortunately, the problem you cited about the "tempest in a teapot" included both of these ideas according to the news commentary I have seen. The commentator I heard linked the two...folksy photo (unretouched) with the caption. Perhaps there has been other commentary since the original which spun off on simply the unphotoshopped photo...but that's not what the original issue was. So, since the two are linked in my mind and you only want to discuss the one issue, I'll bow out of the discussion :seeya: FWIW, I don't have a problem with the photo, nor the photo shot of her legs (another Fox photo controversy) - I think both are beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think when one's post is about a magazine cover then all of the magazine and cover can be discussed in the same thread. I don't think we need to compartmentalize this thread. i guess. but in the original post i pretty specifically addressed the brouhaha around the photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Yes, but the little type next to her huge face is slanted opinion and so fair game to discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plucky Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Please don't bow out. There are plenty of threads on this board that evolve into totally different discussions. Just because someone posts a thread doesn't mean they can control the way it is discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I picked up the Newsweek cover this week while I happened to be wearing my recently acquired 1.25 magnifying reading-glasses (you hit 50 and bang!) and the effect was not a good one. Bill Excuse me for interrupting this worthy conversation, but I have a small quibble. At first this nearly made me pass out, but then realized you must have mistyped, dear Bill. You cannot possibly be 50. You are my age, mister, 41. Nicole (who wishes there were a little emoticon depicting a woman with her fingers in her ears saying "la la la I can't hear you!") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PariSarah Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 . . . helps her. The wrinkles make her look less like a beauty queen and more like a someone who could possibly someday be an Elder of the Tribe, you know? You know how some men just look good all craggy and aged? She looks kind of like that. Or like she will someday be like that, when she actually IS old. The Fox commentator is just a weenie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSMP Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 if at all possible, i was hoping we could confine this discussion to musings on images of women in popular culture and what is or isn't acceptable body image for us. perhaps i am just dreaming... the caption Newsweek chose is probably worthy of it's own thread. Good point Deidre and that was all I thought you meant. I like the photo as is, flaws and all. I agree that the image the media portrays women with the near nude advertising and airbrushing the so called flaws off the body has sent a very bad message to our young women today. The acceptable body image is not realistic nor is it a healthy image. I am thankful that my daughter is very comfortable in her skin. Warts and all.....:D The object behind posting the photo using such harsh lighting was probably meant to show her as flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 (edited) Spy Car, since you sign "Bill" i assume you are male. not that you might speak for all men if you are, but it's interesting to me that you find the photo unkind. i wonder how much societal expectations of what a woman should look like are in play. Deidre, I don't think this is a case of having "idealized" expectations of what women should look like, I'm lot looking for an air-brushed male fantasy. No person, male, female, transgendered, is going to look "good" under a microscope. Online (as in this thread) the cover doesn't present much of a "problem". Not particularly flattering, but not perhaps not "savage". At home it's another story. With tack sharp vision (mine with artificial aid) every little tiny hair coming out of her nose pores, the hairs on her upper lip, the make-up lines, the cracks, are all unnaturally emphasized. And the lighting compounds the effect. It would not be fair if this was Biden, or McCain, or Oma...well maybe he could get away with it :D I will not bore our readers to expound on how disfavorably I view Gov Palin, but other than George Wallace in 1968, I can't think of a candidate for Executive office I've been more appalled by. But I'd rather take on her record (or have Newsweek take on her record) than trying to make her look bad, by making her "look bad". On the other hand, I'm just as happy it didn't look like a Vogue cover (so what do you do?) Bill (a man :tongue_smilie:) Edited October 10, 2008 by Spy Car Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Excuse me for interrupting this worthy conversation, but I have a small quibble. At first this nearly made me pass out, but then realized you must have mistyped, dear Bill. You cannot possibly be 50. You are my age, mister, 41. Nicole (who wishes there were a little emoticon depicting a woman with her fingers in her ears saying "la la la I can't hear you!") Silver fox :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Silver fox :tongue_smilie: :willy_nilly: This rocks my world. I guess it's just our politics we've got in common, then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well, Newsweek is trying to make some sort of point. Putting completely untouched photos on the cover of magazines is just not done, so they had some reason for not touching it up. I tend to think it's something negative against Palin, myself. She is a beautiful woman, no doubt. But that doesn't change the fact that Newsweek was doing something very out of the norm in publishing this picture.... even the most beautiful models in the world are touched up in photos. I'd like to know how Newsweek explains it. I'd also like to know if they gave Sarah Palin the opportunity to approve the image as it was before running it. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think you can "editorialize" with photographs, especially "covers", and I think Newsweek was editoralizing. Bill :iagree: Magazines like Newsweek don't just throw the thing together. Few things are left to chance. When they choose not to retouch someone's photo there is a reason. Its wasn't just something they overlooked. They didn't just say, "She looks good enough!" Even models who are paid to be beautiful and require as little retouching as possible get retouched. Covers are a serious matter in this industry and lots of work goes into making sure they are delivering the message and selling the magazine. This was definitely an editorial decision and it was entirely their right to make this decision. I rolled my eyes when the magazine arrived but I wasn't outraged. We still have a free press...for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Please don't bow out. There are plenty of threads on this board that evolve into totally different discussions. Just because someone posts a thread doesn't mean they can control the way it is discussed. :iagree: I've seen talk about hijacking threads but in threads of this nature I think it has to be expected that tangential but related issues are going to arise and some of those issues may take on a life of their own. That doesn't mean discussion of the original issue can't continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 :willy_nilly: This rocks my world. I guess it's just our politics we've got in common, then. Did I mention my wife is 41? :D Bill (who swears it's true :tongue_smilie:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicole M Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Did I mention my wife is 41? :D Bill (who swears it's true :tongue_smilie:) Ah, I knew it! Then we have lots in common, because my spouse is in his 50's. I feel much better now. [ETA: I'm sorry, are you the one here who hates the word "spouse"? Major mea culpa if that's the case.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 . . . helps her. The wrinkles make her look less like a beauty queen and more like a someone who could possibly someday be an Elder of the Tribe, you know? You know how some men just look good all craggy and aged? She looks kind of like that. Or like she will someday be like that, when she actually IS old. The Fox commentator is just a weenie. It feels wrong to me for people to judge pretty women as incompetent based on their looks in the same way that it feels wrong to judge people in a positive way based just on their looks. In that environment, a young, attractive woman could never assume high level positions in the way a young, attractive man (Kennedy, Obama) could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Ah, I knew it! Then we have lots in common, because my spouse is in his 50's. I feel much better now. [ETA: I'm sorry, are you the one here who hates the word "spouse"? Major mea culpa if that's the case.] Spouse works for me. Less crazy about dh (but I'm learning to adjust :lol:) Bill (who wasn't feeling THAT OLD an hour ago :tongue_smilie:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think she looks great! I can see both sides of the discussion, but, frankly, I wish I looked that good at 20 paces, let alone that close! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 Well, Newsweek is trying to make some sort of point. Putting completely untouched photos on the cover of magazines is just not done, so they had some reason for not touching it up. I tend to think it's something negative against Palin, myself. Erica it's hard for us to know but the writer of the blog i linked to said this: I put a call in to a Newsweek spokesperson to see if they want to add anything. I can say with some confidence that Newsweek does not normally retouch its cover photos, contrary to what other blogs are reporting. since this blog is from Photo District News, a site for industry professionals, i feel the writer may have real world experience as to how Newsweek operates. this is a description of the blog site: Photo District News (PDN), the award-winning monthly magazine for the professional photographer, has been covering the professional photographic industry for over two decades. Every month, PDN delivers unbiased news and analysis, interviews, and portfolios of the latest photographic work. PDN delivers the information photographers need to survive in a competitive business - from marketing and business advice to legal issues, photographic techniques, new technologies, and more. There was a famous incident years ago when Time grossly manipulated a mug shot of O.J. Simpson while Newsweek did not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I should have mentioned in my other post, it's not only the lack of retouching that is ususual, but also the extreme close-up. This is not the kind of photo that normally appears on the cover of Newsweek. Some kind of point was being made. I'd like to hear how Newsweek explains what point they were seeking to get across, in using such an unusual (also clearly unflattering) photograph of Sarah Palin as their cover. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camibami Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 See, I would expect a fashion magazine to retouch (as much as it annoys me!) but not Newsweek. And frankly, she's totally hot. I'm younger than her, and a close-up that close would make a good Halloween cover it were me!!!I don't think it means anything at all, personally. Note to self: turn down cover shot on Newsweek when they get around to doing the Cami Issue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 See, I would expect a fashion magazine to retouch (as much as it annoys me!) but not Newsweek. And frankly, she's totally hot. I'm younger than her, and a close-up that close would make a good Halloween cover it were me!!!I don't think it means anything at all, personally. Note to self: turn down cover shot on Newsweek when they get around to doing the Cami Issue! You can google Newsweek covers, and plainly see that other subjects are portrayed in a dramatically more flattering light than Sarah Palin. Whether it's lighting, retouching, angle, etc. I don't see any that are as unflattering. A quick google search turned up this one with Obama and Hillary Clinton on the cover-- this doesn't not appear untouched to me! http://www.minonline.com/Assets/Image/Newsweek%20December%2025%20best(1).jpg How about this photo of Michelle Obama? http://polivox.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/michelle-obama_newsweek.jpg Whether Sarah Palin's natural looks help her look less unattractive than others might in the same shot isn't really the point, is it? The point is that she was portrayed differently-- she was not given the treatment that others usually are on that magazine. The *reason for that* may be open to interpretation, but that she was portrayed differently is evident. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 I should have mentioned in my other post, it's not only the lack of retouching that is ususual, but also the extreme close-up. This is not the kind of photo that normally appears on the cover of Newsweek. Some kind of point was being made. I'd like to hear how Newsweek explains what point they were seeking to get across, in using such an unusual (also clearly unflattering) photograph of Sarah Palin as their cover. Erica really. not typical but not that unusual either: and again, I think Palin looks terrific! i have the magazine on my kitchen counter. i don't like her politics but she looks great to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I have to disagree that any of the three pictures you linked to have the same effect as the Palin shot. You can see her facial hair on her upper lip, her pores... her shot is much more unflattering. I don't mean to belabor the point, but if it's being suggested that photos like Palin's run all the time on the cover of Newsweek, I simply can't agree. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deidre in GA Posted October 10, 2008 Author Share Posted October 10, 2008 the photo of Hilary and Obama had to be photoshopped because i doubt they would have done the shoot together. however, if i were Clinton I'd be seriously wishing they had photoshopped those cheek and neck wrinkles out! thus, to me the photos were merged but not retouched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 the photo of Hilary and Obama had to be photoshopped because i doubt they would have done the shoot together. however, if i were Clinton I'd be seriously wishing they had photoshopped those chin and neck wrinkles out! thus, to me the photos were merged but not retouched. Really? Goodness, to me it's obvious that they both appear much more glowing, smooth, and attractive than they do normally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5kidsforME Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 okay, help me out here. Fox News is complaining that Newsweek DID NOT retouch the cover of Palin on its cover. http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/10/video-republica.html i am floored by this tempest in a teapot. i have this Newsweek. the picture is not unflattering at all. the commentators are complaining that her flaws were not photoshopped out but what they designate her flaws are the graceful signs of Palin's, or any woman of her age, maturity. personally, i hate it when photos of anyone are manipulated - it especially contributes to the false images of beauty perpetrated in society. is it just me - does anyone else find this unflattering? can women not age gracefully - which i think Palin is an excellent example of? quote] Well I think she looks great! Kudos to Newsweek for NOT retouching photos!! I wish all the magazine would follow that rule instead of pictures of women that are fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CactusPair Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 weird. and insulting. i think she looks beautiful. she's a striking 40-something year old woman and i hope i look that good in a few years. while i don't agree with her views, i think she presents a positive role model for women and girls. here she is lookin' good, having a family, and carving a successful career on her terms. i think it's important for all of us to see examples of mid-life beauty. the touch-up call is just plain sexist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think that is a flattering close up of her at all, but I don't think it was intentionally made to look bad either. She is an attractive woman, and I don't see anything in there I would be mad about not having touched up. I guess Faux News needs else something to gripe about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Btw, did anyone notice the title on the cover ("She's One of the Folks-- and That's the Problem"), or read the incredibly negative piece slamming Sarah Palin inside the magazine? Maybe when someone shows me the negative cover stories that Newsweek has also run on Barack Obama (:lol::lol::lol:, like that would ever happen), I'll be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt on their photography choices as well. Erica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erica in PA Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think that is a flattering close up of her at all, but I don't think it was intentionally made to look bad either. She is an attractive woman, and I don't see anything in there I would be mad about not having touched up. I guess Faux News needs else something to gripe about. So what would you say was Newsweek's goal in choosing that picture? When they saw the proof, facial hair and all, what do you think led them to choose that particular photograph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dani3boys Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I think this just shows of how real she is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 To me this don't seem quite the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beansprouts Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Spy Car, since you sign "Bill" i assume you are male. not that you might speak for all men if you are, but it's interesting to me that you find the photo unkind. i wonder how much societal expectations of what a woman should look like are in play. I probably should read further before jumping in, but here goes... Bill is either a photographer himself or has some sense about the art form. He speaks from his experience of what makes a good photograph, and what doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 So what would you say was Newsweek's goal in choosing that picture? When they saw the proof, facial hair and all, what do you think led them to choose that particular photograph? In this instance I will hope that the people at Newsweek are forward thinking enough to have treated the picture just as they would a picture of a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beansprouts Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Really? Goodness, to me it's obvious that they both appear much more glowing, smooth, and attractive than they do normally. Uh-huh. They definitely photoshopped some lines from Hillary's face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabyBre Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I don't think that is a flattering close up of her at all, but I don't think it was intentionally made to look bad either. She is an attractive woman, and I don't see anything in there I would be mad about not having touched up. I guess Faux News needs else something to gripe about. While perhaps not altered, of course it was published to make her look bad and expose her flaws, so to speak. I don't know if anyone can argue that Newsweek isn't a "liberal rag". Just contrast Google results for "Newsweek cover Palin" and "Newsweek cover Obama". Far from equal coverage. Obama is always smiling, and/or looking upwards (to the heavens?). My favorite one is where the light is actually beaming from behind him. Come on! Newsweek published another close-up Palin picture on their cover several weeks ago and I said at that time how uncomfortable I would be seeing a picture that close of myself. Then I saw the current issue! I have to agree, I truely hope I look that good in my 40s! I can see this backfiring on the libs if anyone else is as impressed with Mrs. Palin as I am that she doesn't wax her upper lip before a photo shoot. She's real with nothing to hide. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.