This is the unretouched phot. She looks beautiful! I'd buy that stuff if I thought I would look like this :-)
Posted on 12/17/2009 3:22:05 PM PST by Steelfish
Again the nanny British state goes beyond truth in advertisement to agonize about people’s self-image. If the Olay product really did produce the depicted results, the nanny state still would be grumbling about the self-image issue.
I saw her on TV a couple of months ago and she is still very beautiful, although there are a few signs of aging. Here’s a recent, untouched-up picture.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1055577/Look-fab-40—Sixties-icon-Twiggy.html
No...I see it more as a ‘truth in advertising’ issue. Oil of Olay was claiming that their product does something it doesn’t do. Short of a a prescription grade Retinoid, nothing sold over the counter is going to eradicate wrinkles. Even the rx will just plump/soften them.
This is the unretouched phot. She looks beautiful! I'd buy that stuff if I thought I would look like this :-)
Definity?
I agree. I'm really skeptical of the entire cosmetics industry in the first place because they're basically conditioning women to believe that they cannot be beautiful without the 'holy creams', that beauty can only be obtained by buying their products. And this is absolutely not true.
If Twiggy really looks like that, fair dues. But airbrushing her face and then using that 'young looking' face to sell the cream is dishonest in my opinion.
She looks great for 59 years old.
Here’s another un-retouched photo:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-496982/The-camera-doesnt-lie-Twiggy-shows-real-age-M-S-launch.html
....I can hardly tell the difference...
Short of a a prescription grade Retinoid, nothing sold over the counter is going to eradicate wrinkles. Even the rx will just plump/soften them.
*************************************
Preparation H has been used “off label” for baggy eyes and wrinkles forever... “the dependable Detroit eye tuck”.
Nice picture. She looks much better as her “real” self.
“In August, British lawmakers called for a ban on the digitally altered ads, suggesting they mislead the public”
I guess England has a really, really stupid public. That, and some really, really hagged out politicians.
vanity, thy name is woman
The proof.....Oil of Olay
The real truth is that all photos of celebrities, politicians on any magazine cover (and pictures inside) are ‘touched-up’.
Of course, campaign poster photos are exempted.
Then we need Congress to get involved on this side of the pond..........That'll make you happy won't it?
The lighting and color balance in those two shots are so different that it’s really unfair to compare the two. The somewhat more “sinister” smile doesn’t help, either.
That said, she does look pretty good for 59. But I also agree with posters upthread that said that if they airbrush photos for cosmetics ads... that’s tantamount to false advertising.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.