Wulf,
Thanks for that. That is the first time I've watched anything on Youtube. I agree entirely with the sentiment of it. My personal view of each of my two subjects is that they are both 'beautiful' in their own way. But it doesn't make a jot of difference how many times I, or anyone else, tells them this, they don't see themselves as such.
It is a bit simplistic to just blame advertisers though. Women put themselves through all sorts of ordeals just to compete with their best friends in the looking good department for a night out together. That's been going on a lot longer than any form of marketing has. Probably greatly increased and accelerated, I grant you, because of advertising, but nevertheless something of a natural process.
By coincidence, I was on a night out last night (well, till the early hours of this morning really) in a club mostly filled with young people. This is not something I have done much of for many years but in reality nothing has changed from when I was young and doing it regularly. It seems to me that women (and men) are constantly competing with each other in the attraction stakes. Marketeers have only taken advantage of this, not actually caused it.
It's rather like film producers who tell the stories of outstanding women. They will, inevitably, cast a 'beautiful' woman in the starring role when the real person probably wasn't. To me it can be a distraction from the story but, for the most part, it must sell more films or they wouldn't do it.
The reality is that we all do it to each other. And I don't suppose I'm any different to anyone else.
One thing I noticed that hasn't changed is that when you see two women on a night out together you rarely see a pair where there isn't a marked difference in the 'beauty' of them. A 'beautiful' woman gets the company and support of a 'plainer' woman whilst also displaying a reference to judge her from. The plainer woman doesn't lose out though. She will have a better chance for a good looking man from the leftovers of her friend than if she only associated with other 'plain' women.
There are so many more things to life than looks, but you usually have to get past them before you can see anything else.
I'm rambling again (I did warn you) but let me tell you a tale about another woman I know. She would be categorized as stunning, even by a blind man on a galloping horse. She's about 5'10", slim, gorgeous black hair, classic features, lovely long legs, perfectly proportioned - I could go on but you get the picture. We regularly work together and I've seen, on several occassions, men walk into lamp posts and street signs because they've been watching her and not where they were going (I always get a sheepish grin from them when they've noticed me watching this happen). But, almost inevitably, she too does not think much of her looks. In all seriousness it is very sad how much torment there is over this issue. And I don't suppose the women I know are any different to those I don't.
The film also made my point about pre processing. Altering the subject, however and whenever you do it, is still manipulating the photograph. It is done to achieve an aim, whether this be to sell more motor cars, or, as with my two subjects, to give them a photograph of themselves that they actually like.
Before you ask, no, the raven haired beauty doesn't like having her photograph taken either. There might be hope though. She has seen the other photgraphs and did remark, "do you think you could make me look that good". I live in hope!
