any photo used commercially would go through photoshop first. honestly, i'm surprised they even used a photo.

This might be throwing a bit of a lit match into the whole thing, but there has been a lot of discussion about how "the media" failed women, and how some sort of unseen force is trying to keep women down, or even men.

At some point in the production of any music video you care to point a finger at, some women have been quite happy to accept money in exchange for portraying whatever it is that certain people are unhappy about.

I have to insist that the question is asked - does everyone WANT equality? There are a lot of women out there quite happy to make a lot of money based on photoshop'd depictions of how they might look in a make believe world. Or to dance around in their smalls, trying their very best to MAKE men interested in their sexual prowess. Their primary money making skill is sexual.

So before we criticise this invisible and possibly make-believe machine that systematically holds women down, how about we consider the individual decisions of prominent women? The women in the blurred lines video weren't forced at gunpoint to strip off and dance around titillating viewers, they accepted payment for a job and did what they were paid for knowing full well that young girls might be watching and imitating them, or whatever.

I mean, great job insulting the hell out of the producer of the video or the choreographer or the guy who made up the song. But all they did was write out a script or imagine out a vision of something they would consider sexually appealing. How about blaming the vacuous bints that wobbled their tits around without considering the consequences?

Perhaps not everyone WANTS equality. Men or women, but women are the easy example; perhaps some or perhaps even many women WANT to be able to use their bodies to gain interest from men or money. If that is the case - as it is for "sexy" music videos, photo shoots, modelling contracts or anything you care to name that involves a complicit woman representing an apparently undesirable or harmful skill - then it is equally unfair to force "equality" on those who do not want it. I see everyone as a person - all equal. And if someone wants to accept payment for wobbling their bits around then that's their decision until it becomes illegal, and it's ridiculous to turn around and say "oh how terribly oppressive of <someone else> for paying that women to flaunt herself." She accepted the fucking cash and did it. She could have pursued any career she wanted. It isn't like she had no other choice.

Additionally, I'm not going to even enter into any discussion that involves "rape" or terms akin to "rape culture" (what a bullshit term) because i actually believe that it detracts hugely from actual acts of rape and the pursuit of justice and prevention of rape.

Why does his face look photoshopped?

Congratulations! Your video, Christmas model being ruthlessly Photoshopped..., has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Christmas model being ruthlessly Photoshopped..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 3 Badge!

It's not a conscious choice to use those methods, they just are what they are.
And I don't measure density, honestly, I have no reason to.

And I am a graphic designer, and when I'm designing for the web, pixel is the Only way to go, as all dimensions in the CSS and HTML are indicated in pixels.

- A web graphic is always 72 dpi, unless for some strange reason its
needed at higher clarity, then I use 96 dpi.
- Images for ads in news print are usually good at 200 dpi.
- Graphics used for full colour print use 300 dpi
I instinctively know the size on the image as it adjusts between the different dpi settings. it's part of the job from doing it for so many years (lol - plus, Photoshop tells you as you reduce the dpi what size it is )

But like I said, if I'm designing for print, then I use Points and Picas - not pixels.

dupe http://videosift.com/video/Photoshop-makes-anything-possible

Am I the only one that thinks she looked far more beautiful pre-photoshop? The woman @ 32 seconds is dead sexy.

Is cute now a verb? Like photoshop?

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video You Suck at Photoshop #17: Automate Photomerge. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Living in Thailand, most TV shows aren't available here until WAY after the Western airdate, if ever.

I live in a pretty small town. Western movies don't play here, and if I travel an hour or so to a town where they do, they do they are dubbed in Thai with no English subtitles. DVDs are readily available, but they are usually pirated cam copies burned to disc, and again dubbed in Thai.

Games? Not available in stores in my town. Bangkok, sure -- but again they are almost always pirated copies burned to disk. Console games are the same way and any shops selling the game will also chip the console to play pirated disks. I could, and admittedly probably SHOULD use steam for PC games.

Other software? Basically same story as games. If you go to a computer store here, advertising usually says that they are sold with Linux OS or bare drives. But, the shop will automatically put on a pirated Windows plus loads of software (office, Photoshop if you ask for it, etc.) upon purchasing the hardware. They are usually fairly inept at it, frequently have viruses or fail to actually activate the OS, etc. so I tell them to leave the drives bare and do all that stuff myself. But for 99% of people who buy a PC here, they will automatically get a pirated OS and software along with it.

Basically, my default mode of getting ANY media is piracy. Price (free versus not) is a part of that. Incomes are low here, but cost of living is comparatively even lower. Still, if media was fully available here but equal to the price in, say, the US the vast majority of people here don't have enough disposable income to afford much if any of it. A bigger issue for me personally is convenience. Piracy (torrents, etc.) as a distribution system is infinitely more convenient, easy, and "customer"-friendly than any more legitimate service. I get what I want very quickly, usually in multiple options for filesize vs quality on up to as-good-as-broadcast/blu-ray 1080p, with most everything available from a single source (isoHunt, kickass, PirateBay, take your pick). In terms of user experience, legitimate distribution can't even begin to compete with that -- and that is BEFORE considering price.

Instead, they exacerbate the difference by treating paying customers with open contempt. Pay for TV service? Enjoy 10 minutes of ads for every 12 minutes of show. Buy a DVD? Sit through un-skippable ads, dire piracy warnings, etc. before the show actually starts. Move or simply take the disk on vacation to another country and you will likely be screwed by region locking. Buy software? Get some DRM that slows things down or restricts fully NORMAL use of the software, nags you to register, etc. On the other hand, if you pirate stuff all of that goes away. No ads. Watch/use the media wherever you want, whenever you want, on whatever device you want. Software DRM circumvented easily, usually hours after the first release if not *before*.

I honestly see it as a problem that I am not supporting the creators of the media that I enjoy. But, Pandora's box has been opened on this one. Generation X and Y learned to scoff at the idea of paying for music due to Napster. iTunes has been extremely lucky to turn that around even slightly, making lots of mistakes along the way (DRM and device-locking, etc.). Gen Y and beyond are going to have the same attitude towards piracy with regards to ALL MEDIA that we learned to have towards music. I don't think there is any getting around that.

For content creators, I think that funding via Label / Publisher / Network is going to die out. And soon. The good news is that something akin to an evolution of patronage of arts and creators can work even better than it did in the past. The Motzarts and Beethovens of the future don't need 1 rich duke or king to commision a work, they need 10,000 average Joes on kickstarter or the like. I see things trending more and more in that direction, and all the time. I think it is an exciting time -- unless you're an exec in one of the old dinosaur publishers/networks.

someone needs to get this man photoshop and a wacom tablet.

@Yogi - I use the term "supermodel" for want of a better term, but @Lann hit the nail on the head.

My comment wasn't as much about her beauty, which is definitely debatable, as much as how her body is unrealistic from every angle and and her facial features seem sculpted. Her body and face look like they could only have been constructed in Photoshop or on a plastic surgeon's table, but it seems she just hit the genetic lottery (in the category of aesthetics at least).

I really like the style of the video; I love how it feels so 80s. I'd never heard the song or seen the video before seeing the original version (before Jimmy Kimmel was edited out):

And how many did not like to be pictured and photoshopped? *music

The camel isn't photoshopped either.