Too funny.

This has to be one of the funnier examples of the overreach of regulations.

Could it really be true that cosmetics makers use the one ten thousandth of one percent of the world’s most stunning women, heavily made up, superbly coiffed, expertly lit, photographed by top dolllar image makers, to sell their make-up to the rest who are really largely beyond help?

Surely not?

What is even funnier is that the companies making these products feel they have to further enhance the results in post processing. Photoshop may be a no-no when it comes to news reporting, but in anything else I say “Have at it”. If the result sells more product or makes for a more striking picture, why not? What happened to caveat emptor? Every painter in the history of art has been a putative Photoshop user by editing at the creative stage. These modern digital artists simply do it in post production, just like Ansel Adams did it in the darkroom. (“Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships”, though what God had to do with it beats me).

You really think that Raphael was telling it like it was to Julius III?

Raphael. Julius III, 1512.

My, but the old boy aged well. No liver spots on his pristine white hands, no syphilis sores.

Raphael wanted to get paid just as much as the photographer, art director and Photoshop maven responsible for the Cover Girl number.