I read about this in the Globe and Mail this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5IRdFIpvA

She is not a model, just an average woman (a friend of the commercial's director, according to the article). Nothing surprising here, but it's interesting to see the amount of work that actually goes into these things.

I fail to see how that could effect the self-esteem of young girls.

ever heard of unrealistic role models?

And here I thought girls and women in America were immune from media/societal presures.

Care to elaborate?

Obviously one commercial isn't going to make or break someones self esteem, but at least you're seeing a visual representation of the process behind creating a billboard or magazine ad. To me it sends the message that with the right light, makeup and photo editing, just about anybody can attain those unrealistic standards of beauty...so in reality nobody should be expected to live up to them.

As a side note, i do some with with Victoria's Secret so i get to see first-hand the level of air brushing and photo manipulation that goes into each shot.

Anyways it's no secret that these things take place, i just thought it was an interesting view of the process.

what i want to know is why she was there in the first place, when she her house is probably a mess, theres food to be cooked, and a man to be pleased

It's interesting, but it's an extremely exaggerated view of the process, too.

Um, not really. If anything, it was probably an understatement.

No, it's not. Doing what you saw there takes a lot of time and expensive software. If you were a photographer working under deadlines and such, wouldn't you naturally want to save yourself time by choosing a model that is already 90% there to what you already need? It's far easier to airbrush out a few pimples or shadows than rearrange an entire facial structure.

I see women all the time that are that beautiful in real life.

I disagree.
Software that manipulates facial features is fairly widespread and is sold to companies specifically for this type of purpose- it wouldn't stand a chance in the market if it wasn't priced to target companies that will use it.
Also, large companies that can afford to put up adds on billboards as well as in magazines aren't going to spend money on 'girl average' to sell their products, they're going to do extensive market research and studies to find out exactly what types of images their consumers will react favorably to rather than using ms "90% there" and then performing some shoddy porno style airbrushing effects to sell to the world.

This isn't about joe the photographer who can snap a roll of film for you to include in your portfolio--Large companies will go to great lengths to get their consumers to let go of that dollar bill in their hands, and I hardly think the use of software to manipulate features is all that much of a stretch for them, myself.

I think lots of men do. I also think lots of women don't realize this. They seem to constantly compare themselves to the overmade-up women on magazine covers and in ads all over the place.

Men are far more visual than women are, and men also tend not to hide this fact. Men see a picture of Pam Anderson or Jessica Alba and make comments about them. The females within earshot suddenly feel inadequate.

Dove is playing upon this feeling of insecurity in this ad campaign. It's just sad all the way around.

Using photoshop EXTENSIVELY in the modeling/photography business isn't that much of a secret. What you saw in that ad is pretty much standard. Time? Money? it would take under and hour to fully reconstruct a model in a photo... it's really not that big a deal.

With all due repsect, I don't really think this is entirely the fault of advertising or Hollywood. I think women are going to feel inadequate and compare themselves to other women because it's in their nature to do so. Men see other men as a threat, and women see other women as a threat, and it's as old humanity itself, and older. This is just how women manifest it. They're catty and jealous and have feelings of inadequacy that they try to cover with $100 haircuts and make up and fancy clothing and jewelry and other materials.

If we all lived in caves, women would be putting their own excrement in their hair to make it shine like Munga's hair does.

I don't blame the advertisers or hollywood. These ads sell products. That's their job. Well, Dove is shitty for trying to capitalize on the insecurities of women, but that's about it for blame from me.



So you don't recommend this technique?

If the photoshopping were always done to the extent it's done in this commercia, Supermodels wouldn't look the way they do. What would be the point?
Also - every single ad a model does would look different. Different artists would apply their own standards of beauty to each picture. Kate Moss would look different in a Lancom ad than she looked in a Max Factor ad. No one would ever look the same on TV or in person as they did in their printwork. No one would be recognisable. Every picture is touched up - of course. But not to the extent of actually moving physical features. Occasionally, sure, but Dove gives the impression here that every billboard you come across is some Photoshopped monstrosity - and it isn't.

That's you, isn't it.

So what, they are saying she was ugly without all that make-up and airbrushing?

Sorry, you're wrong.
Just read this and get back to me: http://www.cbc.ca/streetcents/guide/2005/04/s03_01.html

And yes, I watch kids TV shows all the time.