Photoshop & Makeup - The Debate

Photoshop & Makeup - The Debate

I'm feeling quite philosophical tonight and I found this image and look I created a couple of months back. The whole debate regarding makeup is something that is most likely to carry on for years and many have mixed views to if it should be used at all.  My own views when it comes to using photoshop for advertising is mixed, I can see reasons to why it should and shouldn't be used, but at the same time, if a company needs to advertise a mascara, it's rather hard to show what it does without extra help.  But then surely by creating lashes from nothing but a photoshop brush is false advertising, but then I guess they are advertising the features of the mascara.  The list really goes on and there really is no right or wrong answer to any of them as there seems to be so many counter arguments.
The trouble is, there is no set limit on how far companies can go, and this then creates a perception of beauty that many aspire to, but can never reach.  The perception of beauty today has only started to create a generation of people with misguided and false views to what they can achieve and the future holds two options.  There's the extreme beauty side which seems to be dominate currently in the form of Toddlers and Tiaras, where beauty is really being pushed to the very limit, and then there's the other extreme of going and looking completely natural which would devastate makeup companies on a global scale.
I hope that future generations are taught all about photoshop, and re-touching, and what can be changed, added and taken away in post production.  I take knowing these things for granted as I clearly have a passion for makeup and brands, in fact I'm surrounded by similar minded people too.  It's not until I talk to people who have no interest in makeup, that I realise they don't actually realise when things are retouched, or when there're not.  This creates a mixed view to these people, and they really have no idea which brands to trust.  And that's not even my point for this blog.
My main point is that I adore Alex Box, and her makeup skills are ridiculous, as in fabulous, her makeup skills are truly amazing and inspirational.  Alex creates looks for each Illamasqua collection and they are on point, precise and perfect.  When I show an Illamasqua booklet to another person, their first reaction is always 'oh that's been so retouched', and in reality, it really hasn't.  From watching behind the scenes videos and Alex in action myself, I know that very little re-touching will be carried out after a shoot.  The fact people think the images have been retouched to the extreme not only affects the brand, but also the makeup artist.

I really went off on a tangent just then, that's the problem with this whole debate, it's everlasting and covers so many different aspects of makeup and beauty.  I guess my point is don't just assume somethings been retouched, don't say how awful adverts are that use 'fake' lashes to show is a mascara curls - then the next second look for a mascara that does just that, and finally do your research.  Most advertising in magazines will say if false lashes have been added, or what colour the model used to dye their hair so you have a few quick answers to your questions right then and there.

The trouble is, I think beauty companies should and shouldn't use re-touching...

And to the main point of this entry - Many of the makeup looks I create on this blog go through a mixture of no re-touching, to a lot of retouching.  The majority of looks are shot in a studio setup and it's refreshing to find images like this that are just taken off a webcam.  I see amazing talent everyday on Facebook when it comes to makeup skills, and those people are so inspirational, and I guess it sounds big headed of me when I'm reminded like those people, I don't need to retouch my images either...

I really have gone off on a tangent now...