Are all those magazine girls really that hot?

[Scrubking]

NOPE!

BEFORE-----------------------------------------------------AFTER
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UAAJA3sY6e*xy!wKbUg34KCIZloOI0PXUXsuVt48eIN5WqJSF IvIPv1!IxUSxnZUqphInV7Zx*JjzJXAhAXw8yhB7dXr8Pkziw7 WZNJpZBA7DLWeQ6CLc3SCxBcAcMQX/BeforeAfter01.jpg

:puke:

[vrs1650]

I'd hit it with both, a lot quicker than with Morgan Webb. Just kidding MWL.

[doraemonkerpal]

argh, that's just not right! lol!

[PsyClerk]

Why must you torment us?

[Scrubking]

Why must you torment us?

:twisted: Mwahahahahahahahahaha :twisted:

[WhipSmartBanky]

That's like saying, "Which is better, cake, or cake with icing on it?"

They're both pretty damn sweet.

[metroidkiller9]

it certainly doesnt help that there is a stream of liquid dripping from her nether-regions in the "before" photo.

[doraemonkerpal]

it certainly doesnt help that there is a stream of liquid dripping from her nether-regions in the "before" photo.

LMAO! ah... this quote/picture made my day :P

[ZForce915]

It's well known the magazines do a TON of photoshopping on their pictorials.

[Scrubking]

It's well known the magazines do a TON of photoshopping on their pictorials.

Not it's not.

Besides I just wanted to post a funny pic.

[Snake2715]

It's well known the magazines do a TON of photoshopping on their pictorials.

Yeah but did you actualy ever see the difference.

Where did you get this. I would like to see what the computer has done to some more models.

[WhipSmartBanky]

It's well known the magazines do a TON of photoshopping on their pictorials.

Not it's not.

Besides I just wanted to post a funny pic.

Yes, it is. Photoshopping, digital manipulation, airbrushing - it's been done for years and has been "exposed" before.

[Lizard Axe]

I think he meant that it's not well known.

[Mr Unoriginal]

I think he meant that it's not well known.

And WSB meant that it is well known.

[Lizard Axe]

Haha.. Oops. :oops:

[snotknocker]

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/silverman2c.jpg http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/silverman2b.jpg

[Scrubking]

There is a difference between something being "known" and "well known".

I am sure that people know that magazines touch up their pics, but I doubt that many people know that some pics are actually overhauled to make fat chicks skinny like my pic above.

Also don't forget that just because you know something doesn't mean that everyone else should know it too. :roll:

[MorganWebbLover]

I'd hit it with both, a lot quicker than with Morgan Webb. Just kidding MWL.


I think not ! After I got done Banging Morgan Webb If I had enough energy left I'd go plow these two skanks.

[WhipSmartBanky]

There is a difference between something being "known" and "well known".

Yes, there is. This is "well known."

I am sure that people know that magazines touch up their pics, but I doubt that many people know that some pics are actually overhauled to make fat chicks skinny like my pic above.

Fat chicks? You've got a pretty twisted view of women if you think that chick in your first post is a fat chick, before retouching or not.

Also don't forget that just because you know something doesn't mean that everyone else should know it too. :roll:

And don't forget that just because you don't know something doesn't mean that it's not well known to others. :roll:

[rimsforsale]

There is a difference between something being "known" and "well known".

Yes, there is. This is "well known."

I am sure that people know that magazines touch up their pics, but I doubt that many people know that some pics are actually overhauled to make fat chicks skinny like my pic above.

Fat chicks? You've got a pretty twisted view of women if you think that chick in your first post is a fat chick, before retouching or not.

Also don't forget that just because you know something doesn't mean that everyone else should know it too. :roll:

And don't forget that just because you don't know something doesn't mean that it's not well known to others. :roll:

Im not that good with html so bear with me. WSB now look here, these are opinons of others, but yours is way to strong, even borderlining flaming.
your first comment- what makes you the expert on what is considered as "well known" can you read minds like professor X??? i think not.

your 2nd comment- everyone has their views on whats fat and whats not, there is a significant difference between the two photos, maybe not fat FAT, but a good 10lbs is shaved off. if we saw the after pic we would never of known that she looked any where close to the before pic.

your 3rd comment- a very good comment, so here goes: And don't forget that just because YOU know something doesn't mean that it's well known to OTHERS.

common now, your view contradict each other, jus because u have like hundreds of post doesnt mean you can pretend to be lord of the universe. I do agree that this photoshopping is well known, but how often do we get to see the before picture??????!!!!!!! even if we all know that mag photos are retouched and airbrushed, wouldnt you still be shocked to see that one nipple was bigger than the other? or her chi chis are actually closer to her belly button than her neck?! man i didnt hear you giving any props to OP for at least finding the pic and sharing it wit us. all i heard was bitch bitch bitch.

[magilacudy]

common now, your view contradict each other, jus because u have like hundreds of post doesnt mean you can pretend to be lord of the universe. I do agree that this photoshopping is well known, but how often do we get to see the before picture??????!!!!!!! even if we all know that mag photos are retouched and airbrushed, wouldnt you still be shocked to see that one nipple was bigger than the other? or her chi chis are actually closer to her belly button than her neck?! man i didnt hear you giving any props to OP for at least finding the pic and sharing it wit us. all i heard was bitch bitch bitch.

Banky wasn't bitching, just being his smartarse self in response to Scrubking's smartarse comment. If you want to give Scrubking props, you can, that's your prerogative.

However, I think it is pretty much well known, but none of us can truly say definitively well-known unless we take a nationwide survey. To a lesser extent, SI does this with their swimsuit issues, Playboy with their pictorials. Even in advertising this is done, one example that came to mind was that they made J-Lo's butt and boobs smaller in Gigli posters. Hell they can do anything digitally these days, that's what R. Kelly's whole defense is resting on.

If anything, as the song says, if you don't know, now you know...

[WhipSmartBanky]

Im not that good with html so bear with me. WSB now look here, these are opinons of others, but yours is way to strong, even borderlining flaming.
your first comment- what makes you the expert on what is considered as "well known" can you read minds like professor X??? i think not.

your 2nd comment- everyone has their views on whats fat and whats not, there is a significant difference between the two photos, maybe not fat FAT, but a good 10lbs is shaved off. if we saw the after pic we would never of known that she looked any where close to the before pic.

your 3rd comment- a very good comment, so here goes: And don't forget that just because YOU know something doesn't mean that it's well known to OTHERS.

common now, your view contradict each other, jus because u have like hundreds of post doesnt mean you can pretend to be lord of the universe. I do agree that this photoshopping is well known, but how often do we get to see the before picture??????!!!!!!! even if we all know that mag photos are retouched and airbrushed, wouldnt you still be shocked to see that one nipple was bigger than the other? or her chi chis are actually closer to her belly button than her neck?! man i didnt hear you giving any props to OP for at least finding the pic and sharing it wit us. all i heard was bitch bitch bitch.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAALOLOMGHIVCSIBBQ!

Funniest.post.EVER! :rofl:

Thanks for the laugh, dillhole!

[red flare graf]

Hey, I didn't know. I've never really thought about it.. I don't like models, generally. :roll:

[Scrubking]

The point is unless you have poll numbers or other facts don't go flaming people for things you think should be "well known".

That simple bit of foolishness has started countless flames across many a board.

Example -

User A: Hey when does X game come out?

Moron A: You don't know? You are a fucking idiot moron. HAHAHa Everyone knows when X game comes out.

[PsyClerk]

WSB flaming? The hell you say...

Looks like this thread gave Scrubking flashbacks to GameFAQs forums.

I KNEW nothing good could come of this!

[Scrubking]

WSB flaming? The hell you say...

Looks like this thread gave Scrubking flashbacks to GameFAQs forums.

I KNEW nothing good could come of this!

I didn't say anyone here was flaming. Just giving an example. :roll:

[WhipSmartBanky]

You guys have a very soft definition of flaming...

[WhipSmartBanky]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/48hours/main551362.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-06-16-covers_x.htm

I guess you're right...it's not well known if you've never seen the news or read a paper...

[SneakyPenguin]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/48hours/main551362.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-06-16-covers_x.htm

I guess you're right...it's not well known if you've never seen the news or read a paper...

since you cant say it for yourself...PWNED

[magilacudy]

OLSON'd

[Scrubking]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/28/48hours/main551362.shtml

http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-06-16-covers_x.htm

I guess you're right...it's not well known if you've never seen the news or read a paper...

Stop trying to be right using vague terms. All you proved is that 2 websites talked about magazine photo editing.

You have yet to prove that this subject is "well known" - which you will never prove because it is a vague term.

I can say something is well know and be talking about my close friends so get a better argument buddy. :roll:

And you are a fool to think that just because a news channel or paper runs a story that everyone in the US (let me specify), is supposed to find out, and know about it.

Do you know all of the news going on everywhere in the US? NO, even though there are thousands of papers running thousands of stories, etc.

[CaseyRyback]

both of you quit the bickering!! I have the best proof that people know about the airbrushing


CARNIE WILSON IN PLAYBOY!!!!!!!!!!

c'mon you know she still has stretch marks, and they even removed her mole

[bignick]

I know!

+1 for WSB

[WhipSmartBanky]

Stop trying to be right using vague terms. All you proved is that 2 websites talked about magazine photo editing.

Vague terms? I thought I was pretty specific with the links to two very major news sites.

You have yet to prove that this subject is "well known" - which you will never prove because it is a vague term.

You weren't paying attention. I just did.

I can say something is well know and be talking about my close friends so get a better argument buddy. :roll:

And you'd be wrong.

And you are a fool to think that just because a news channel or paper runs a story that everyone in the US (let me specify), is supposed to find out, and know about it.

I don't think everyone in the US knows about it, but that's not the point, is it? The millions of people who've watched CBS News and read USA Today, not to mention the tens of thousands - if not millions - of website visitors all know. Hence, it IS well known.

Do you know all of the news going on everywhere in the US? NO, even though there are thousands of papers running thousands of stories, etc.

I don't need to. I still proved my point.

[CaseyRyback]

Stop trying to be right using vague terms. All you proved is that 2 websites talked about magazine photo editing.

Vague terms? I thought I was pretty specific with the links to two very major news sites.

You have yet to prove that this subject is "well known" - which you will never prove because it is a vague term.

You weren't paying attention. I just did.

I can say something is well know and be talking about my close friends so get a better argument buddy. :roll:

And you'd be wrong.

And you are a fool to think that just because a news channel or paper runs a story that everyone in the US (let me specify), is supposed to find out, and know about it.

I don't think everyone in the US knows about it, but that's not the point, is it? The millions of people who've watched CBS News and read USA Today, not to mention the tens of thousands - if not millions - of website visitors all know. Hence, it IS well known.

Do you know all of the news going on everywhere in the US? NO, even though there are thousands of papers running thousands of stories, etc.

I don't need to. I still proved my point.

again PWNED!!!!!

[Methane]

I thought it was common knowledge they airbrushed models for magazines. Hell, I knew about it back in the late 80's before you guys were born.

[mrtoki]

Same here. I thought it was a well known technique too. I've seen numerous e-mails, pics, articles, shows, etc. about this stuff already and thought it was old news.

[doraemonkerpal]

i knew about it, but i've never seen a "before" picture before :D

[rimsforsale]

im so tired of wsBS smart azz remarks, which reflects his "inner child" hahah.. everyone shut up and start a poll, then you can at least have some source. be sure to add-in a "I've heard about it but never seen a before picture" as im sure would be the majority of CAGs but if poll goes landslide to "I've heard about it and seen before photos" then ill admit wsBS had a strong argument.

[Mr Unoriginal]

im so tired of wsBS smart azz remarks, which reflects his "inner child" hahah.. everyone shut up and start a poll, then you can at least have some source. be sure to add-in a "I've heard about it but never seen a before picture" as im sure would be the majority of CAGs but if poll goes landslide to "I've heard about it and seen before photos" then ill admit wsBS had a strong argument.

Well I think we would all agree that WSB is a smart ass. But his arguement was whether or not the FACT that people are airbrushed in magazines is well known or not. It may be interesting to see a before picture, but I still think WSB has a strong arguement here.

[WhipSmartBanky]

im so tired of wsBS smart azz remarks, which reflects his "inner child" hahah..

If you're tired of them, stop reading and replying to them, jackass.

everyone shut up and start a poll, then you can at least have some source.

I already proved it with two highly accredited news sources.

be sure to add-in a "I've heard about it but never seen a before picture" as im sure would be the majority of CAGs but if poll goes landslide to "I've heard about it and seen before photos" then ill admit wsBS had a strong argument.

You don't need to admit I have a strong argument.

Well I think we would all agree that WSB is a smart ass.

I don't deny it.

But his arguement was whether or not the FACT that people are airbrushed in magazines is well known or not. It may be interesting to see a before picture, but I still think WSB has a strong arguement here.

Exactly. I'm not faulting the picture or how interesting it is. I find it rather amusing and a quite skilled manipulation. Where the argument begins is whether or not the use of digital (or airbrush) manipulation of photos is well known or not. And it is.

[Scrubking]

Like I said earlier splashing some articles on the screen from some news sites don't mean anything.

All you have proven is that those sites have written articles about the subject and that it's readers, however few or many MAY have read it. Key word is MAY.

Also quoting me and making little remarks doesn't make you right or prove your point.

You have yet to show hard evidence that the photo editing of mag pics is a "well known" subject.

don't think everyone in the US knows about it, but that's not the point, is it? The millions of people who've watched CBS News and read USA Today, not to mention the tens of thousands - if not millions - of website visitors all know. Hence, it IS well known.

Like a fool you base your assumption on every reader/viewer reading every single article in every single paper and thus knowing every single piece of news. I shouldn't have to say this, very few people read an entire paper or website. People are selective about their news and even if "millions" of people passed through those sites it does not guarantee that "millions" gave a crap about that article and bothered to read it. Same goes for all forms of news media.

In fact your whole argument is based on weak assumptions. Just cause CNN reported something at 6.00 doesn't mean that all of its potential viewers tuned in or even cared about that particular news story. So your whole if/then argument is weak, simplistic and wrong.

Not to mention your whole argument is mute until you define the scope of people that your term "well known" encompasses. Like I said "well known" can mean anything.

And to counter your weak argument I would ask this - if this subject is so "well known" why are so many people turning bulemic, getting implants, etc based on images they, according to you, already know are fake and edited? If it's so "well Known" that these images are doctored why do they have such an effect?

Anyway, this crap has been amusing, but I am done. There are only so many annoying, immature phrases like "pwned" I will tolerate in a day.

[maxgle]

looks good to me! lol

[SneakyPenguin]

Also quoting me and making little remarks doesn't make you right or prove your point

it works for jsweeney

[WhipSmartBanky]

Like I said earlier splashing some articles on the screen from some news sites don't mean anything.

Not to you, maybe.

All you have proven is that those sites have written articles about the subject and that it's readers, however few or many MAY have read it. Key word is MAY.

Yeah, and?

Also quoting me and making little remarks doesn't make you right or prove your point.

Actually, when the remarks are well known sources, it does.

You have yet to show hard evidence that the photo editing of mag pics is a "well known" subject.

I have. You're either not reading or just not comprehending my posts.

Like a fool you base your assumption on every reader/viewer reading every single article in every single paper and thus knowing every single piece of news. I shouldn't have to say this, very few people read an entire paper or website. People are selective about their news and even if "millions" of people passed through those sites it does not guarantee that "millions" gave a crap about that article and bothered to read it. Same goes for all forms of news media.

I'm assuming no such thing. Even if a marginal percentage of the readers of every website and newspaper or viewers of the numerous TV programs and news reports that have featured this paid attention to it, it's still a large enough number of people to argue that it is, in fact, a well known practice.

In fact your whole argument is based on weak assumptions. Just cause CNN reported something at 6.00 doesn't mean that all of its potential viewers tuned in or even cared about that particular news story. So your whole if/then argument is weak, simplistic and wrong.

I already addressed this.

Not to mention your whole argument is mute until you define the scope of people that your term "well known" encompasses. Like I said "well known" can mean anything.

First of all, it's "moot," and second, you're wrong. "Well known" cannot "mean anything." Using your faulty logic, could we then assume "well known" to you might mean "tuna taco." THAT'S foolish.

And to counter your weak argument I would ask this - if this subject is so "well known" why are so many people turning bulemic, getting implants, etc based on images they, according to you, already know are fake and edited? If it's so "well Known" that these images are doctored why do they have such an effect?

Why are movies and video games, which are also well known to be "fake and edited" being blamed as an influence in youth violence? Imagery, regardless of its legitimacy is a powerful tool and highly influential in the minds of the impressionable.

Anyway, this crap has been amusing, but I am done.

I doubt that. You'll return to refute me by calling me a fool and telling me I'm wrong without providing any proof yourself.

There are only so many annoying, immature phrases like "pwned" I will tolerate in a day.

Here's one more. PWNED!

[evilmax17]

Oh man, Scrubking and WhipSmartBanky are fighting? It's like the clash of the newbs titans!!!

[WhipSmartBanky]

We're not fighting. Or, at least I don't consider it a fight. We're having a discussion...a friendly debate.

Don't take it in the wrong light. I hold no ill will toward Scrubking - we resolved that issue long ago.

[magilacudy]

That's what forums are about, friendly nonpersonal debates. Some people take things more personally than others though.

You know, there should be a poll on here whether or not it is 'well-known', at least to CAGs. It's irrelevant to put in an option 'I didn't know there was before pictures' because obviously for every finished picture, there's a source picture that was edited. That doesn't mean the editing work wasn't done.

[Methane]

Scrubking got SERVED

[dcfox]

I'm going have to agree with Scrubking on this one. "Well known" is an extremely vague phrase that can have different meanings in different contexts. The problem with the phrase itself is the world "well". If you said that digital manipulation of photos was something that is "known", the articles WSB cited can prove this statement true. However by adding the word "well" you are creating a statement that cannot be proven and shows opinion rather than fact. This is because the word "well" is undefiniable in terms of concrete information or numbers. It is like saying "many" or "alot" we use these words because the definite amount is not known or quantifiable.

[WhipSmartBanky]

I'm going have to agree with Scrubking on this one. "Well known" is an extremely vague phrase that can have different meanings in different contexts. The problem with the phrase itself is the world "well". If you said that digital manipulation of photos was something that is "known", the articles WSB cited can prove this statement true. However by adding the word "well" you are creating a statement that cannot be proven and shows opinion rather than fact. This is because the word "well" is undefiniable in terms of concrete information or numbers. It is like saying "many" or "alot" we use these words because the definite amount is not known or quantifiable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=well-known

Does this help?

[dcfox]

well-known (wlnn)
adj.
Widely known; familiar or famous: a well-known performer.
Fully known: well-known facts.



What percent of the population constitutes "widely". Even if a poll were taken, widely does not imply any preset boundaries or limits. My idea of widely can differ from your definition. And correct me if I'm wrong but fully known implies that everybody knows. From the same site
ful·ly adv.
Totally or completely: fully grown
Since it is impossible to poll everyone in the United States it cannont be proven that the practice of digital manipulation of photos is "fully known"

[yellowaznboy]

Why must everything turn into a debate. Let's just bask in the beauty that is air-brushed models.

[WhipSmartBanky]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=widely

"To the full extent; completely."

Sounds about right.

[dcfox]

adv. wider, widest
Over a great distance; extensively: traveled far and wide.
To the full extent; completely.
To the side of or at a distance from a given boundary, limit, or goal.


"Over a great distance; extensively" is still vague. From Massachusetts to California is a "great distance" but compared to the distance from one galaxy to another the distance between those two states is miniscule

[Methane]

Everyone from Massachusetts to California knew about the airbrushing of models. That's pretty well-known indeed.

[WhipSmartBanky]

adv. wider, widest
Over a great distance; extensively: traveled far and wide.
To the full extent; completely.
To the side of or at a distance from a given boundary, limit, or goal.


"Over a great distance; extensively" is still vague. From Massachusetts to California is a "great distance" but compared to the distance from one galaxy to another the distance between those two states is miniscule

extensively

\Ex*ten"sive*ly\, adv. To a great extent; widely; largely; as, a story is extensively circulated.

And thus, we have returned full circle.

Continue? 10...9...8...

[donssword]

s' all good boys, it's ALL good.

Shut up and be grateful women don't pack us all into a rocket and shoot us to the moon and be rid of us hairy, knuckle dragging, chest beaters.

[dcfox]

I call truce.

[WhipSmartBanky]

I call truce.

Fair enough. I'm done unless addressed directly again anyway.

[Advocatus]

Aight, these are the kind of discussions I usually stay out of because nobody wants to do anything but be right, but I'll throw my .02 in... I'm no noob to photoshop but I have to say I was quite surprised at the before and after shot. I knew they could tan the skin, get rid of pimples, a double chin, etc etc I do it for friends pic's time to time (I would call that airbrushing) but that was wholesale skin reduction. It looks damn good... hmm maybe I have to re-evaluate my current relationship... after learning these skills I could then also be dating a internet quality model. hmm.
I say your both right. Part of growing up, is understanding a need to compromise, and seeing the other's guy's point of view 50% of the time. Consider this all a character building experiment.

[doraemonkerpal]

Why must everything turn into a debate. Let's just bask in the beauty that is air-brushed models.

LOL! :P

[rimsforsale]

I call truce.


truce nothing! dont ever give up!! lol...

i agree with scrubking anyways. smart allics are usually short in size but big in bark... most of my friends who like to think of them'selves as smart asses are 'bout 5ft tall... im not dissing them, it just applies to the ppl in my life... well i think this debate is finally over... lets start another one, lets call it.. "do you think you are always right?" k.. go!