How old is this woman?

adrian says:

06:40am | 30/10/09

My girlfriend is fifty and gorgeous.

Dorian Gray says:

06:44am | 30/10/09

As a professional photo-retoucher myself, this story cheats a little. The model has decent bone structure and is a rather youthful looking 50 year old. If she was actually made up properly with tidy hair in the before shot, you would be hard placed to accurately guess her age anyway. Nonetheless excellent work on the retouching by Abbie Huntz.

Paul Hyland says:

06:46am | 30/10/09

I agree that the photo manipulation does make this woman look much younger.  Yet I can’t help thinking that the Rudd Government should step in and stop this sort of thing from happening?  But once again, it’s one rule for the rich, and one for the rest of us Joe Taxpayers.

Xavier Gouault says:

06:47am | 30/10/09

I must be cursed, I am 39 years old, and I get told that I don’t look that age. I keep wine and cheeses very precious. We age, naturally, and get thrown on the scrapheap.

Michelle says:

06:52am | 30/10/09

Wow, that is amazing… Very scary, especially with the amount to teens who become slaves to the fashion mags…

Shelby says:

07:00am | 30/10/09

Good grief.. no wonder some women feel bad about themselves! I had a photo taken with my sons when I was in my 30s..even at that young age, the photographer digitally retouched the photo. Friends who see the photo now comment on how good/youthful I look in the photo. I simply laugh and say I have never looked like that (i.e. completed freckle and wrinkle free). I applaud people like Sarah Murdoch and Deborah Luckie who are disproving the fantasy women who constantly grace the covers of magazines.

Disappointed says:

07:17am | 30/10/09

“Retouched” doesn’t even begin to cover what has been done to this woman’s picture. There are almost no original features left and it is a dishonest manipulation.

Hair, wrinkles and folds have been removed; eyes retouched; cheekbones reshaped. The image above is more like a teenager’s cyber fantasy woman than a real photo. The result has nothing to do with her original age so the question of how old she is, is immaterial. The effect is comparable to having a fine arts student copy a dark, moody Van Gogh painting in pastel colours and asking what original colours Van Gogh used; there is simply nothing of the original left. Which may be fine for magazine use etc, but becomes disingenuine when parallels are drawn to the real person. We discourage 15-year-old girls from padding bras, caking on the makeup and dressing like 20-year-olds to get into clubs, but we allow the opposite sort of manipulation all the time. Go figure.

Miss Mayhem says:

07:20am | 30/10/09

Just look at the eyebrows - it’s amazing what a defined shape and a darker colour can do. That alone took took several years off. The neck too stands out to me. I am in my thirties and I think I will invest a little more time in covering up in the sun and applying face cream below the chin. Very interesting process.

Jean Stewart says:

07:22am | 30/10/09

Ms Luckie is a beautiful woman and doesn’t need to be airbrushed at all. Our lines etc are our history and they make ourselves the photos of our lives. Individuality is the celebration of our uniqueness. If it is necessary to airbrush ourselves then it is the society that needs changing. Our friends are the connection to reality and if they demand perfection then it’s the relationship that needs attention NOT the person.

Garry says:

07:25am | 30/10/09

I teach Photo Shop at a TAFE.
There is nothing wrong with digital manipulation if its used “properly”
If this lady showed her friends the fixed picture they’d love it but they still see her as she is if you know what I mean
Nearly all my students want to know how to get rid of wrinkles and ageing, in most cases its ego and just a bit of fun

Terry Boyle says:

07:30am | 30/10/09

you call this journalism. What a load of cheap popular gossip - this whole topic and now this venue ‘The Punch’ is just like reading the old “Truth” paper. Its such a cheap bunch of git. What is wrong with you? Don’t you know how to have any intelligent articles. Anyway Like on of the other responses said, few would go so far as to make a rendition so drastically younger as you have shown here. It doesn’t even look like her (the lady is already beautiful anyway as she is, and must have been a stunner with natural beauty when she was very young, but she ain’t old yet either), but The Punch with this crappy article and cheap journalism has lost me.

I bet you don’t put this one up.

Dr.D says:

07:34am | 30/10/09

Breaking News: Photos can be digitally altered!!!

Gosh get a life people and stop blaming someone else for your own bad decisions.

LOJM says:

07:38am | 30/10/09

Paul (above)

WTF are you on about?

Dee says:

07:39am | 30/10/09

A very brave lady to undergo such scrutiny! She did not need to be photoshopped as she looks gorgeous anyway.
I am so sick of the images of almost alien looking women. No lumps and bumps, curves in all the right places etc. Some of them are so overdone that they look plastic and vacuous.
Kids of today are already too vain and disrespectful, all this is teaching them is that the only way to be popular is to be perfect.

MarK says:

07:42am | 30/10/09

50 Yes! I guessed correct!

Andrew says:

07:56am | 30/10/09

I guessed her to be about 48, pretty close. the lips were the give away!

My name says:

08:00am | 30/10/09

That is a pretty over the top example…
Yes you can do that, but do you think they bother going to that extent with evert picture? You know how long it takes to do properly?

Paul says:

08:01am | 30/10/09

I wonder why we need models for anything nowdays.  Just get anyone and by the time they are retouched they can be made to look however the magazine wants.

Joe Moore says:

08:04am | 30/10/09

Paul Hayland: What are you on about? The government should legislate this? One rule for the rich and another for the poor? This is about stupid fashion magazines, not a union rally!

David says:

08:04am | 30/10/09

I work in the magazine industry - and yes images are routinely retouched for covers. But no where near as much as in this article. It’s very misleading. And you can complan all you like, but the reality is that unretouched images just DO NOT sell magazines. It’s been experimented with before in the UK and failed badly. The Mag in question had to go back to retouched cover shots to get their readers back.

Nathan H says:

08:06am | 30/10/09

You’ve missed the point through exaggeration, just like the youtube clip of a while back did. The professional retouchers make someone look like a better version of themselves. This retouched picture looks like a completely different woman. FAIL.

John in Alice says:

08:07am | 30/10/09

lT is only a photograph folks!  Get over it.  The lady sees people in real life every day and it isn’t as though she is cheating anyone.  As a photographer myself I find it interesting and informative but also raises questions as to how far to push retouching if doing someone’s portrait.  Most people would probably NOT want their photograph so far from their real image although it might be very tempting to have a make over that would produce such stunning results.

A Smith says:

08:09am | 30/10/09

Manipulation!!! I thought Transformers was real…
if body image is such an issue, why do we have an obesity epidemic!

marty kubrick says:

08:11am | 30/10/09

There are a million reasons why retouching is not newsworthy. No one will ever meet the ‘younger’ face in real life, so it’s an easy image to steal and use elsewhere. Fait accomplit.

ChristopherAlan says:

08:12am | 30/10/09

Well, what is the difference between using this technology to smooth out someone and what hollywood was doing for years with Vaseline on the lense to soft focus the ageing stars.
I do not beleive that this is a realistic example to use of Ms Luckie, as she has magically morphed into a computer animated version of Ms Cate Blanchett!

One thing is that they have kept her eye colour the same which is spectacular! in both photos you can really see the person she is through them!

Bart says:

08:12am | 30/10/09

I think she looks fine without the makeover.

Kia says:

08:19am | 30/10/09

Is this the youtube one you referred to Nathan?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

Same sort of thing

London girl says:

08:22am | 30/10/09

Hmmmm…a few people seem to be missing the point here. As the article says, it was commissioned to illustrate how removed from reality images can end up - not to show how retouching should be done. The related article “My life as a retoucher”  gives a fantastic perspective on her craft.

Mark says:

08:22am | 30/10/09

I agree with Dorian Gray.  What if the model was given a traditional non-surgical facelift?  Get a professional hairdresser and makeup artist to apply their craft and the difference would be far less astonishing.

None the less, digital ‘enhancement’ should be frowned upon and be treated as socially unacceptable…just like smoking.

Julie Argus says:

08:27am | 30/10/09

I am 53 y.o. and what could possibly be wrong with a photo that makes me look that good? It does not change me as a person but it would certainly give my a special buzz every time I looked at my picture hanging on the wall. Someone please tell me what is wrong with that. Maybe it is vanity but why do we put makeup on everyday, why are beauty therapist in such demand, why do we spend milions of dollars on weight loss programs. Great article Abbie - I will remember FauxPink.

Hans Stevens says:

08:29am | 30/10/09

I agree with Paul. Rudd should step in and stop this.

Aims says:

08:31am | 30/10/09

Argh

Get over it people. Its not news that people on magazine covers are digitally altered and to be honest id be pissed if they werent. I can look at ordinary people with wrinkles obvious signs of ageing all week, i like to be transported into a world of fantasy.

As for the usual Mums blaming everything on magazines and television for their daughters appearance issues, FFS teach them that that is not the reality instead of crapping on on a website about how glad you are that sarah murdoch looks normal!

Sheesh. People need to be more accountable.

Mahgal says:

08:37am | 30/10/09

Before and after photoshop this lady looks beautiful in both ways. Absolutely gorgeous.

DW says:

08:38am | 30/10/09

I love retouching images, its so much fun. Mostly i do it at work to remove unwanted items from the backgrounds of images.

Steve says:

08:44am | 30/10/09

I guessed mid 40’s for the touched, and would’ve said mid 50’s for the untouched photo, so on average I was 100% correct - who’s fooling anyone?

nate says:

08:46am | 30/10/09

i actually thought it was pretty obvious that she was in her late 40s, early 50s when I saw the first picture. There are many obvious signs when a photo’s been retouched

rt says:

09:01am | 30/10/09

wow, i guess ‘professional retouches’ have something to answer for when it comes to the whole ‘teenage image’ debate. If only the teens that look at the ridiculous glossy magazines in the first place actually understood that many of the images have been retouched so that the people have the ‘right’ look.

steve brisbane says:

09:03am | 30/10/09

Well I reckon she still is a stunner, and probalbly more of a woman to boot

Nicholas says:

09:06am | 30/10/09

how is photo retouching any less deceiving than females spending two hours in the bathroom transforming their face with makeup.

Grumpy Middle Aged Man says:

09:08am | 30/10/09

I love the fact that your story has people calling for the Rudd Government to step in and stop this practice.  That is so funny!

The best way for this practice to be stopped is for the public to STOP BUYING the magazines.  Send letters to the Editors in Chief telling them until their magazine stops using manipulated photographs on the front cover you’re going to refuse to support either the magazine or any of it’s advertisers.  Then CC the letter or email to the advertisers.
One word of warning though, if you succeed be prepared for some very heavily made up people on the front cover of the magazines.
Editors have done what they have done at the request of advertisers, agents and to some degree the readers who have in the past proven that they prefer to look at fantasy pictures rather than the real thing.

Mark Patten says:

09:12am | 30/10/09

Sales at Adobe go up x% everytime some journalist discovers PhotoShop.

Matt says:

09:16am | 30/10/09

Who is to say the second photo isn’t the touched up one.

Petar Belic says:

09:20am | 30/10/09

Hello, we do this sort of stuff in our sleep at Renelt Belic Design. Having said this, this is NOT a photo-retouching job. This is more of an Illustration. The retouched image looks more like a completely different person that bears NO relationship to the original image. A bit silly really, as an illustration of the issue. If anyone’s really interested in a better example of this issue, I suggest you google ‘Dove Evolution Commercial’ which shows a much better example.

Bon Jupiter says:

09:22am | 30/10/09

I think back to the days before the digital revolution; when beautiful women truly were beautiful women. Think Catherine Hepburn, Marilyn Munroe etc. Now anybody can be beautiful for a few magazine covers. Thank God for the papparazi. Hmm… did I just say that?

Maria says:

09:24am | 30/10/09

Hey Deborah, you still look great for 50!

Suzanne says:

09:27am | 30/10/09

seriously, retouching and photo manipulation has been happening forever, and unless this image was used as part of a factual news story, there’s no problem with it. People who dont realise by now, that pretty much all photos that are printed have some sort of retouching or colour correction applied, have to be very naive. As long as they are not selling this as the truth, eg look how this moisturiser changed my face (false advertising) or using altered images for news stories.. then its just a pretty picture and who cares!!

Mike says:

09:30am | 30/10/09

I’ve had many website clients ask for their photos to be retouched slightly before being put online.

Regularly, I’ve also then heard how their clients comment on how young they look in their website photos - and this is with a very small amount of photoshopping (teeth lightening, smoothing pores etc)...

I suggest that at some point, a digitally modified image would breach section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1975 (Cth) as it would be false and misleading to a reader.

I agree that the before image is overly “rough” - but I think the point of the article is to show the extreme difference. If the model was made up as best as she could be in a before, the difference would still be noticable, and I suggest just as glaring.

Heather says:

09:39am | 30/10/09

I guessed 47 for the re touched photo!

Tongueincheek says:

09:40am | 30/10/09

There’s another product readily available on the market that does this sort of retouching for both men and women, every night of the week, making older people look younger, and making people look more attractive than they may be in real life.  Sometimes it even makes people appear funnier and more witty than normal.
It’s called alcohol… 

Kate says:

09:41am | 30/10/09

Paul Hyland, what the hell are you on about?  Why a law, and what does it have to do with being rich?  It is a surprising difference I agree, but teaching children to love themselves and believe in themselves does not require a law.  I agree with Bon Jupiter - the papparzi show us reality!

melo says:

09:51am | 30/10/09

i was watching a foreign movie on sbs last night, and all the actors were 40-50yrs plus. i was almost shocked at how naturally beautiful these people were with all their age lines intact, sans botox, surgical facelifts etc. it made me realise how rare it is to be exposed to natural ageing in our society thru the media, whether it is film/tv or magazines. oh btw, ms luckie is also a beautiful woman!

nikita says:

09:56am | 30/10/09

I have to say, I find it kind of funny that people would be expecting the government to stop photo retouching. honestly, don’t you think their time is better spent on running the country rather than policing the fashion industry?
ridiculous.

Nick - Bittenbydesign.com says:

10:00am | 30/10/09

well, after seeing the nasty stuff appearing on photoshopdisasters from the fashion industry, at least people are being made aware of just how much retouching is done. (lets face it every photo gets a little bit of work to look better for print or web)

H says:

10:00am | 30/10/09

The original un-editied photo is some impressive looks for a 50 year old

30+ says:

10:06am | 30/10/09

The lady in the photo looks amazing for 50 sans Photoshop. Way to go:)

Tammy says:

10:08am | 30/10/09

As I looked at the retouched image my 5 yo daughter came and looked over my shoulder ‘that looks like a very nice lady’ she said Hmmm… I scrolled down, how about this one ? “Oh she looks very nice too, she looks the same” She looked upon the side by side images ... “she is the same but one is a bit older, its the same person but one is older and one is, um ... all nice and straight’

I’m happy little girl sees straight and older as both very nice.

Glen says:

10:11am | 30/10/09

Why don’t we all just stop buying those junk magazines which peddle these retouched photos and we can all start feeling better about ourselves.

RFM says:

10:11am | 30/10/09

The touched version looks like a cyborg…albeit a very attractive one. I really think retouching is getting way over done when the magazine covers don’t even look like real people. Is the woman meant to be ‘made up’ in the original…because I think a bit more make up would have had the right effect…the retouching makes her look like a different person (and really as I said not a human being at all!)

Leah says:

10:32am | 30/10/09

Nathan H - I presume the “youtube clip a while back” you mentioned was the Dove ad. The Dove ad was not exaggerated. If you examine the magazine-cover-images of certain celebrities, then look at a paparazzi shot of the same celebrity, often you’ll notice the boobs are smaller, the celullite is actually there, the face not so blemish-free, the hair not so shiney, etc.

Nicholas - photo retouching is different to makeup because makeup is making the best of what you have. Photo retouching can *completely change* what you have. For example, makeup cannot change the shape of a woman’s nose, the length of her neck, the wrinkles beside her eyes, the mole on her cheek, etc. Photoshopping can. It can make your neck longer or shorter, it can completely remove blemishes like moles or scars (of which severe ones cannot be covered by makeup unless you’re having a professional film makeup artist do it), it can straighten your nose, it can smooth out your wrinkles.

RMB says:

10:33am | 30/10/09

I get the point, but it’s a bit over the top. We all know that images in mainstream media/women’s mags are heavily retouched but not beyond recognition of the actual person’s character- otherwise no-one would recognise the celebrity!

If the mags stopped retouching, sales would plummet.. a simple disclaimer would do, thanks.  BTW- I retouch my facebook pics here and there too, and I’m sure a lot of people who know how do it also!

Lexi says:

10:34am | 30/10/09

If you don’t get what all the fuss is about, watch this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epOg1nWJ4T8

It’s not about the individual photos or images being retouched, it’s about the collective influence on our expectations and self-image.  Moreover, it’s about the collective influence on the expectations and self-image of impressionable and innocent minds who are growing up in a world where they don’t know any different, and they don’t understand that every image out there is almost “pretend”.

Kevin R says:

11:16am | 30/10/09

Why not, unless it’s used for deception.  I would love to have a picture of myself much more handsome.
At 72 that’s not likely.

Clover says:

11:31am | 30/10/09

Deborah, you’re beautiful in the before photo. Beautiful!

nuse says:

11:37am | 30/10/09

the touchup looks like a complete different person everything has been fixed to the point where it dosent even look the same alot more things have been change to make this person look better then she probaly looked like its a disgrace and this is why i dont buy magazines because all the woman in them are just fake and are just a fantasy of what the person actully looks like

Gavin says:

11:49am | 30/10/09

I really don’t see what the problem is. An image has been changed with software, why the panic? It’s just pixels and colours, nothing more.

Paul and Hans Stevens, Rudd should legislate against this? FOR WHAT? This isn’t the 4th Reich or a Sharia nation. Get real.

Victor T says:

11:53am | 30/10/09

A touch overdone, however she probably did look like that when she was about 40 yrs or age so maybe it would have been great to see a photo of her at around that age to get a true comparison.

Ella says:

12:28pm | 30/10/09

It’s pretty funny actually. I’m 17 and pretty sure my skin doesn’t even look half as “good” as in that retouched photo.

Personally, don’t see what the big deal is over re-touching. Everyone knows that magazines re-touch photos so it’s not exactly misleading people (and that includes young people too) and people complain so much about the fact photos are re-touched yet, as some people have already said, it’s been proven that sales fall when mags don’t retouch their covers and photos…so clearly more people are liking retouching than not.

martinX says:

12:34pm | 30/10/09

Remember what the magazines are: collections of ads for makeup and clothes. things that change the appearance of women…

Big Ed says:

12:39pm | 30/10/09

The government could make a fortune by offering this service as a driver’s license or passport photo option!

Cynthia says:

12:45pm | 30/10/09

This has nothing to do with the Government. Why can’t people accept that they are getting older & be themselves. Personally I prefer the before photo.

Melissa says:

01:34pm | 30/10/09

Well, why the fuss over stick-thin models if they’re all being re-touched to this effect in magazines anyway? Haha!

DG says:

01:51pm | 30/10/09

It’s no different to make up. The whole point is to change the image of a person - add a bit here, hide a bit there - and create an idealised image. It’s hardly new. I accept that more can be changed digitally, but the purpose is the same.

Here’s a novel idea, if you don’t like the practice, don’t buy the magazines. Of course that would involve a degree of personal accountability and responsibility. Perhaps we should whine that it’s unfair that their advertisements are effective.

To that end - I will not be purchasing any magazines that routinely use this practice. Not that I do at the moment. I can think of better ways of spending my hard earned than buying volumes of advertising material.

I must say I enjoy reading these articles, it’s a reminder of how lucky I am that my beautiful wife very rarely wears make up.

Jon says:

01:54pm | 30/10/09

Cindy Crawford.: “Even I don’t wake up looking like Cindy Crawford.”

Venise says: says:

02:58pm | 30/10/09

Is this article a PR piece for the ‘Photo-retoucher’s’ Union or is it just another ho hum piece about aging women? You know, ‘You make think you look lovely now darling but this is what you will look like when you are 50’. Whose word have we got that it isn’t the other way round from what it says it’s about?

BIG QUESTION: Why do we never see shots of men and the aging process?
Nag, nag, nag!

Women get married at about the age of 20. By the time we hit our 40s the slim young man who was a bull in bed, you know, the one we married. Has now got a small beer-gut-with a promise it’s gonna get a hell of a lot worse. The full head of hair has been replaced by a shaven head, to disguise the fact he’s going bald, the muscles have gone to flab, and his ideas have become set in concrete. All he talks about is his favourite footy team, and honestly believes that the atrocious sound of ‘Oi, oi, oi’ Is sophisticated barracking. But worst of all, the bull has turned into ‘Not now darl, the dogs are playing the swans’.

Grizla says:

03:29pm | 30/10/09

She has done a great job the only detail to give away the age is the hair

Paj says:

03:50pm | 30/10/09

Retouching IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be illegal. As a photographer of babies and families, I routinely retouch my images to bring out the best in the photographs. Even babies are retouched - did you want little Chloe to have excema or a scratch or forcep bruises for the rest of their lives? NO, of course not! You want to see your Baby how they are on their best day as we all know that we remember the best times with more detail than the worst.  This example of course illustrates how to actually change a persons features. I have no remorse in retouching the images of my clients so that they have the best lighting, the best hair and best skin day of their lives! Deborah (the model) will look different in differing lights. Look at yourself in the mirror in the morning light, the afternoon light and the bright lights of your IXL Tastic at night - you will look different. It’s always the people who take things to the extreme that make the most noise ...

Jane says:

03:55pm | 30/10/09

When I’m 50 I’m going to look as good as this woman’s retouched photograph for real. I’m 32, have been getting a little bit of botox for the past 5 years and love it. I also take exceptionally good care of my skin, stay out of the sun and have good nutrition. Plus I have a great dermatologist and plastic surgeon, who combined still work out cheaper than buying useless products from a cosmetic counter.  In my 40’s I plan on having a chemical peel and using some dermal fillers, and anything else that is developed over the next 15 years. It’s not about looking young, or fake,  it’s about taking care of yourself so you will be the best you can be. And I do it for myself, nobody else.

Andy. says:

04:34pm | 30/10/09

Given enough time i could turn her into an Elf, bit of green here, pointy ears there…In real life women wear layers of make up, in print they wear layers of photoshop.

Matt says:

05:04pm | 30/10/09

People are saying this is an “exaggerated” version of retouching and no-one would ever push it this far. They should take a look at the latest cover image on Madison magazine. It mightn’t be taking things quite this far but it’s only one step removed—and this is not an exception for this magazine’s cover images.

http://www.magshop.com.au/Madison-Magazine

?? says:

06:15pm | 30/10/09

i would have thought 45+ (but, desperately trying to pull the other way) with surgery or retouching done.

Paul Hyland says:

06:17pm | 30/10/09

I am not saying I have ALL the answers, but surely the Rudd Government can do SOMETHING about this?  Don’t get me started on education.

Nick B says:

11:56pm | 30/10/09

The touched up photo makes her look like a manequin.

Matthew says:

07:15am | 31/10/09

Yes and yes .... know what I’m sayin’

FW says:

08:38am | 31/10/09

“Yet I can’t help thinking that the Rudd Government should step in and stop this sort of thing from happening? “
You can’t be serious. You just sound jealous/ignorant.
And no, this is not a ‘youthful looking’ 50 year old. My mother is 50 and still has barely any wrinkles, and skin like a baby’s. SHE is a youthful looking 50 year old. This is an average - or even aged - looking 50 year old. They didn’t ‘cheat’ at all.

SM says:

11:20am | 31/10/09

Don’t like it? Don’t buy it! As for K Rudd stepping in - are you nuts Paul? Just what we don’t need, more legislation telling us our to live our lives instead of encouraging us to be accountable for our own lives and those of our children. It is extreme, but that is what this article was all about, the majority of retouching is rarely noticed by the average person.

Jolanda says:

09:34am | 01/11/09

I was talking to my 11 year old son about commercials and ads and how they influence young people and he said and I quote:

“Only stupid people get their wisdom from commercials”.

So I guess the question we have to ask is “How many stupid people do we have in the world and are we educating people to be stupid and as a race are we going backwards?.

Education – Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our children deserve better

Max says:

11:08am | 01/11/09

Along similar lines I cannot fathom why people get those glamour photos done and proudly display them on their walls at home, or online. It looks nothing like them! Why?

T.C. says:

07:24pm | 02/11/09

Abbie Muntz does a really good job at making people look entirely unrecognisable as themselves.

Jagman says:

11:36pm | 07/11/09

As London Girl noted, virtually everyone seems to have completely missed the point that the article was setting out to make. i.e. “the treated photo was commissioned to illustrate how removed from reality faces and bodies in the media can be”.
No-one set out to create any sort of deception here, the intent was purely to add to the discussion about the use and extent of digital ‘refinement’ of photographs, particularly those used in magazines and the world of fashion.
To those who felt compelled to add to the discussion with comments such as “still look great for 50”, “looks amazing for 50”, “some impressive looks for a 50 year old” and the like, does it not occur to you that such pathetic attempts at a compliment are in fact doing more to continue the ageism inherent in the insensitivity of both your comments and the compulsion within the advertising & media industries to perpetuate the fascination with youth.
In my opinion, that is more what the article was drawing our attention to than whether or not the retouched photograph is realistic or a deception.  Surely the point is that computer programmes now allow an experienced practioner to create a new image that can end bearing absolutely no resemblance to the original is so desired.  Whether or not this is acceptable is to all extents and purposes is irrelevant.  It happens and the general populace do not have an interest in thinking about it or debating it.  This sort of thing will go on for as long as society in general has a fixation with youth and sees ageing as a ‘disease’ that afflicts anyone who lives past the age of 30 something.

Jacqui says:

02:06pm | 10/11/09

I think the untouched photo shows a beautiful woman.  The touched one looks plastic.  I find looking at faces erased of lines quite an odd experience.  It’s somehow jarring.  I like seeing the character in faces.  If you take that away (either through airbrushing or plastic surgery) it diminishes us as humans.  That is my emotional response.  It’s how I feel.

Malc says:

10:10pm | 16/11/09

The 50 year old model concerned is a good looking woman (in fact she looks like Cate Blanchett) even without makeup, and the touched-up version is an extreme demonstration, so it’s a bad example.

Angela says:

09:40am | 20/11/09

As I use Photoshop Professionally all I can say is this, this is plain wrong, I understand using the healing brush to remove a couple of wrinkles around the eyes but this is HIDEOUS.

Douglas Reedy says:

11:59am | 02/12/09

Photo shop is wonderful !! this is BS !!
I wonder whats she looks like getting out of bed ??

cymbidium orchid says:

02:11pm | 02/12/09

very funny article

Anthony says:

02:44pm | 11/02/10

It just goes to show how easily the media can skew the truth to make thing seem more appealing.  But unfortunately, corruption is what fuels this modern, industrialised world.

Dapper says:

06:46pm | 11/02/10

I thought the lady in the first photo was in her mid-40s who underwent a hell of a lot of plastic surgery. In the digitally altered photo, you can still see the eye wrinkles but it looks like she has cheek implants and a top lip implant as well.  I thought this article was going to be about the marvels of plastic surgery.

Mary says:

01:49am | 22/06/11

Wow! Digital retouching is amazing!  It makes her look 20 years younger.  I would have thought that she had a facelift if I didn’t read the article.  I’ve heard that there is digital retouching in video as well. I don’t know how I feel about my profile not looking the same as a retouched picture.