Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

> I'm not sure how this matters.
>
> **because the modification was so minor I contend it added nothing
> sexual.
>

Well, then? What *did* it add? More to the point, why was it done?

> Again, that's not relevant. It was *inherently* sexual, and the
> question is whether or not that's ok.
>
> **why?  Because it was her boob?

Um, yes.

***so the matter of why they did anything is not relevant because you find it
sexual.  Doesn’t that say as much about you as them?

***now let me pause and agree that the likely reason they made ALL the edits was
to make the image sexier.  I have never said otherwise.

> What about the hair and facial edits?  Her abdomen? The  glow?  All of
>these was there.  We only seem to care about  the boob.

Okay, well, these questions are sort of outside the scope of the debate. Why do
civilized cultures generally place special sexual emphasis on womens' breasts? I
don't know, but they certainly do. The question, then, is why was it done here,
and is it okay that they did?

***No those questions are at the heart of my contention.  They contribute as
much to the sexualization as anything else.  Yet no one comments, all we hear
about is the boob. And the boob was kept realistic the actress.  If anything the
prior image made her look smaller than she is.

***the edit was made, I have never said other.  I merely think that it was
hardly sexual in result.


> I mean, look, if you were simply saying, "Yeah, they made the pic a
> little sexier, and I have no problem with that," that would be one
> thing. The head scratcher is this, "Maybe they didn't do anything at
> all! If they did, it wasn't much! You can't see her nipples, what are
> you bitching about?" argument.
>
> ***hmmm, I check and so far you win for the being the first to mention
> nipples. I see where your mind is.

I was kidding about that last part. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

***so was I

> ***Seriously, no one has made any of those arguments.

You've made *both* of the first two arguments ("maybe they didn't do anything at
all" and "if they did, it wasn't much").

**no.  I never said they made no edit.  I said they did, and that the edit was
trivial.

> ***let me repeat.  I don’t find the breast edit inherently sexier.

Fair enough. So why do you think it was done? (Or, if you can't bring yourself
to accept that it *was* done, why do you think it is *ever*
done?)

**I said why and Mike scoffed at me, but as a photographer, the original image
was flat and ugly because of the angle of the shot.  They did minor edits and
give her more feminine contours. It was actually quite flattering and they
stayed in a reasonable realistic shape.  Had them gone much further I would be
happy to join in the outrage, but this was seriously minor.  I sent a link to a
picture that shows that picture confirms to Emma's actual form.  How is that
wrong?

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot