babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Medias Affects On Relationships

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Medias Affects On Relationships
Ki No Ronin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7195

posted 27 October 2004 05:02 PM      Profile for Ki No Ronin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Konnichi Wa to All:

It is the modern aged media overly sensationalizing everything, and is what I blame the most for the social discord that has started the Battle Of The Sexes back in the 1960s or so. I point to the famed canadian murderor Paul Binardo case of instance. For 2 1/2 years, the media gave graffic details of this mans crimes to the general populace to the point that now, women are walking around completely scared out of their minds as a lot of them are sooooo tramatized by the graffic details of this man crimes. Before the Paul Binardo case, I used to be able to openly walk up to a girl, introduce myself, and get acquanted easily. After the graffic details of that guys crimes were sensationalized for 2 or 3 years, I could not approach a female anylonger without taking the risk of getting pepper sprayed, arrested, or in some way screamed at. Nowadays, I just walk down the road, keeping to myself, and I dont even try anymore (hence the reason I am still single, probably).

Actually, I have thought on occasion, while watching a news broadcast editorial on how evil and dispicable men are, that I think that all the anti-male rhetoric on the news is actually designed to help decrease the human population. By showing women all of this propoganda about how abusive, sexist, and evil men are, they are trying to use a type of brainwashing mind control to cause women to be fearful of all men, and therefore causes population reduction.

Well, I can tell you it is working. I have known tons of mens my age (around 40ish) who have never had a stable relationship in their lives. I actually know about 3 or 4 guys that I get together with every Saturday night at one of our places. We drink beer, watch sports, or play video games. We have been getting together every Satuday night since high school was over. Not a single one of us have ever had a stable relationship with a female, and not a single one of us has ever reproduced (except for "ED", who sired a daughter during high school).

I, myself, have been working as a residential manager of apartment buildings for the past 9 years, and I can tell you for sure that everything is not even half as bad as the media makes it all out to be. If everything were even half as bad as the media make things out to be, I would not be in this business. And in the occupation I am in, I get to see first hand the demographics of society, and I can tell you one thing. I have known many, many, many males and females who are living out their entire lives single, without children, and not getting married. Once again, I blame the mind control the media generates for this.

However, all of these issues do not bother as much as it did before having been in Hiroshima Japan. While in Hiroshima, I discovered the Supreme Lifeform, and I have now a new mission in life to accomplish. And that is the promotion of Tree, and Plant Nature worshipping. From my research so far, I have found that studying witchcraft Wicca Paganism is the perfect vehicle for accomplishing that aim. My younger brother is presently married with one child, so I have decided to let the business of reproduction of the human to him, while I do my work of promoting Nature Worshipping. By promoting Nature Worshipping, I am hoping to create in manfind a new set of personal values that will hopefully cause the humanity to save itself from any further uses of Atomic Weapons.

But for a conclusion, I will borrow a lyric fromthe Pink Floyd song The Wall, when I say unto the media: "Take back your mind control."

Ki No Ronin


From: New Westminster | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 27 October 2004 08:11 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
After the graffic details of that guys crimes were sensationalized for 2 or 3 years, I could not approach a female anylonger without taking the risk of getting pepper sprayed, arrested, or in some way screamed at.

Okay, d'you think that maybe you're approaching women wrong? Paul Bernardo did a long of heinous things, but I don't think you can blame him because women aren't giving you the time of day.

Strange overbearing men freak me out and make me strengthen my clutch on the pepper spray. It has to do with the predatorial way they approach and won't leave me alone. Neither Bernardo nor the Battle of the Sexes occur to me at that point. Just some creep who's bothering me.

quote:
We drink beer, watch sports, or play video games. We have been getting together every Satuday night since high school was over. Not a single one of us have ever had a stable relationship with a female

Okay, now I know you're writing sarcastic Gen X fiction. You can't honestly be wondering why you aren't meeting women. Right?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 27 October 2004 08:17 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Puetski: WORD
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 27 October 2004 08:23 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By showing women all of this propoganda about how abusive, sexist, and evil men are, they are trying to use a type of brainwashing mind control to cause women to be fearful of all men, and therefore causes population reduction.

Nu-Uh... It's the media's portrayal of anorexic women that causes this. When all women strive to become stick-thin, our menses will cease and nobody will be healthy or strong enough to bear any more children! That's my theory. Anybody else have one?


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ki No Ronin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7195

posted 27 October 2004 09:04 PM      Profile for Ki No Ronin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:

Nu-Uh... It's the media's portrayal of anorexic women that causes this. When all women strive to become stick-thin, our menses will cease and nobody will be healthy or strong enough to bear any more children! That's my theory. Anybody else have one?


I agree that Media's overly promoting the importance of always being Thin, Pretty, and Youthful is one of the causes of Anorexia.

I have a essay that rewrites Genesis 1, ver 26 to 31. I believe that the Theological Philosophies of the opinion of Mankind being Created in a Godlike Image is the basis for such Pyschosis such as Anorexia.


Ki No Ronin


From: New Westminster | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 28 October 2004 09:04 AM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have a essay that rewrites Genesis 1, ver 26 to 31.

You can't rewrite fact!

Steffi's analysis on anorexia is spot on. Furthermore all the hormones from birth control pills end up in the water supply rendering men homosexual if they drink it or shower.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 28 October 2004 09:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 28 October 2004 11:13 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
rendering men homosexual if they drink it or shower.

And if you try to get around this by only drinking white wine spritzers and taking baths, well...


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 28 October 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(except for "ED", who sired a daughter during high school).

Ironic that the only one with a child is the one whose name is the acronym for erectile dysfunction.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
FakeDesignerWatch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6901

posted 28 October 2004 12:49 PM      Profile for FakeDesignerWatch   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this is interesting, and I think the original poster has a valid point somewhere, and I think it has something to do with the general fear culture.

I only don't go to places if I have a valid fear of serious bodily harm or death. And, so, there isn't anyplace I fear walking at any time of the day in the city where I live. There are places where I may be robbed, but that is unlikely, and I don't worry about it.

However, for most of my female friends this is not the case and restrict where they go for fear of being abducted and killed. What a horrible thing to have to think about, and it's something I don't worry about in the least.

However, I think we put too much emphasis on the bogey man waiting in the dark, and not enought emphasis is made on the fact that most violent crime is committed by people who know thier victim.

Also, sometimes women are overly standoffish at bars, but many men are creeps. So, I have better luck meeting women when I am in a situation where they can trust me.

But, really, I am the same guy. If I cannot be trusted at a bar, I can't be trusted at a party. However, when I am at a party, women are more forward. Funny, huh?

Also, Maxim lad mag culture doesn't help.

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: FakeDesignerWatch ]


From: Milan | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
FakeDesignerWatch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6901

posted 28 October 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for FakeDesignerWatch   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
whoops!

[ 28 October 2004: Message edited by: FakeDesignerWatch ]


From: Milan | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 28 October 2004 07:41 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FakeDesignerWatch:

Also, Maxim lad mag culture doesn't help.


I've always seen the Maxim thing as a very subtle form of vicious mockery (of men). That is, when I have read those, ahem, magazines... Mostly at the barber shop. Cough.

Women have no obligation to be warm and welcoming to all men who wish to mate with them. In fact, they have no obligation to be polite, any more than men do.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Genesis though.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 28 October 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:

I've always seen the Maxim thing as a very subtle form of vicious mockery (of men).

I'd be very interested in reading more about this perspective. Do Maxim-type mags mock men's intelligence? Exploit their primal natures? And what of the women who are exploited within the pages and on the covers? Fascinating, indeed.

P.S. Regarding Genesis, what does Ki No Ronin have to say about the discrepancies between G1 and G2? Particularly the fact that in G1 God made "them" (suggesting creation of both genders at once in His image), but in G2 Woman is made from Adam's rib.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 28 October 2004 11:02 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:

I'd be very interested in reading more about this perspective. Do Maxim-type mags mock men's intelligence? Exploit their primal natures? And what of the women who are exploited within the pages and on the covers? Fascinating, indeed.


Oh, no doubt the magazines exploit the women in the pages etc. However, the few times I've flipped through one I've always had the sense that the reader is actually being mocked for being the kind of knucklehead that would actually buy the magazine and take it seriously. I remember reading an interview with the (at the time) editor of Maxim a few years ago that touched on the mocking tone, and she essentially agreed. However, I have no link, as it was likely doctor's office reading or some such (the article, not Maxim).


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Publically Displayed Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5642

posted 29 October 2004 12:59 AM      Profile for Publically Displayed Name        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Finally, someone derails a thread onto a siding where I actually know a little of what I'm talking about!

I've written for a lad-mag, and enjoy the genre. (My articles included an analysis of Hooters as the commercialization of subconscious breatfeeding nostalgia, and an examination of whether the Playboy bunny symbol is meant to reflect the trickster rabbit character from certain African folklores, or merely a big ol' castration symbol).

The editorial voice/POV varies from mag to mag, obviously, but Maxim's is the converse of Playboy aesthetic, which pitched cheesecake and objectification in with a package of "serious" or "sophisticated" articles, legitimizing the objectification.

Maxim is meant to be all Id, all fart jokes and boobies, and I think if its a backlash to anything, it's Iron John and the Promise Keepers. There's no critique inherent to the content, but, well Brit mag Loaded's subline for a while was "For men who should know better". So it doesn't exactly really endorse or legitmize its own POV, but it does try to excuse it.

... which is a different spin from a more mysoginistic playa' type pose, like you'd see in ... Outlaw Biker, or '80s hair metal videos, or some of the less well known Maxim knockoffs.

ETA: By the way, I do not buy the thesis that media spin on anything, particularly on one horrible set of crimes, has made dating difficult. Dating is inherently difficult, and if you're current tactics aren't working for you, you just need to find ones that will.

Oh, and Steffie,
The women created at the same time as Adam was Lilith, according to some Jewish folk and/or religious traditions. She got kicked out of Eden for either wanting to be on top during sex or for some other reason, and so then God made Adam go to sleep and carved Eve from his rib.

(There are lots of sophisticated Judaic and Christian lore and apologetics for just about any Bible weirdness you can think of).
[ 29 October 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]

[ 29 October 2004: Message edited by: Publically Displayed Name ]


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
weirdmantis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7189

posted 29 October 2004 11:08 AM      Profile for weirdmantis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The media isn't trying to get people to be thin, it portrays humans as they should naturally be... not fat!
From: Mars | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 29 October 2004 11:12 AM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The media isn't trying to get people to be thin, it portrays humans as they should naturally be... not fat!

Wrong. Absolutely fucking wrong. The average actress is substantially thinner than what would be deemed "healthy".


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 29 October 2004 11:48 AM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Wrong. Absolutely fucking wrong. The average actress is substantially thinner than what would be deemed "healthy".



I don't know if there's any statistics on this, such as how many actors are of what weight, but the camera does tend to add pounds to both men and women. Hence both male and female film and TV personalities need to keep their weight down as much as they can, unless their character allows otherwise.

When I hear stories about Russell Crowe putting on say 40 lbs to play the chemist in The Insider, then losing it all to be in Gladiator, I really wonder how in the hell he does it. He's not really 22 years old anymore. (I would be very happy to shed 40 pounds!)


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 29 October 2004 11:55 AM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Budd Campbell:


I don't know if there's any statistics on this, such as how many actors are of what weight, but the camera does tend to add pounds to both men and women. Hence both male and female film and TV personalities need to keep their weight down as much as they can, unless their character allows otherwise.


Since they look extremely thin on TV, that means in real life they must look like walking skeletons.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 October 2004 12:40 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know if there's any statistics on this, such as how many actors are of what weight, but the camera does tend to add pounds to both men and women. Hence both male and female film and TV personalities need to keep their weight down as much as they can, unless their character allows otherwise.

Man, I hate it when people trot that old saw out. The camera does NOT add pounds. Depending on which media you use, and how you are lit, certain things can be accentuated. It may make you look heavier if the angle of the lighting is a certain way, or a certain type of lens (wide angle, especially) is used. However, if you are very thin and are lit very high-contrast, you can look exceptionally gaunt. Film and video are highly manipulative media. I've been watching myself on camera for many years.

That being said, it is also true that it is fashionable for actresses to be way too thin. I had always thought of it as a Hollywood thing, but recently I met some of the cast members from Corner Gas. Holy crap!!! These women are itty bitty! They seem to me to be about average height on tv, but man, they're all shorter than me (I'm 5'6"), and just TINY.

Another random bit... I was watching a documentary on the National Ballet a few days ago, and it had archival footage of ballerinas in the '50s and ballerinas now... What a huge difference in the amount of body fat! 1950s ballerinas were muscular, but still had breasts. Now, very small. I found that very interesting.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 29 October 2004 01:53 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
1950s ballerinas were muscular, but still had breasts. Now, very small. I found that very interesting.

Maybe because the choreographers want higher lifts and leaps than ever, to emulate cinematic special effects, which set the standard of audience expectation.

There is something to the influence of media on daily life. For instance, a lot of 'guys' seem to believe that sitting around, watching tv sports, eating chips and drinking beer is their pre-ordained function on this earth.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 29 October 2004 05:56 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:

Man, I hate it when people trot that old saw out. The camera does NOT add pounds.



Well, I have been filmed a couple of times and it's my experience that it does. If certain techniques are used, I suppose that effect could be reduced, or enlarged if you want. But definitely there is pressure on actors to be as light as possible.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 29 October 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, there is. But don't blame it on the camera. Blame the producers, directors and marketing people.

The camera does not necessarily make one look fat. I say this from the experience of periodically working on camera for over a decade.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ki No Ronin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7195

posted 30 October 2004 06:21 PM      Profile for Ki No Ronin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Puetski Murder:

You can't rewrite fact!

Steffi's analysis on anorexia is spot on. Furthermore all the hormones from birth control pills end up in the water supply rendering men homosexual if they drink it or shower.


Oh Yes I Can. Observe!!!:

In my Supreme Lifeform essay, I mention Genesis 1: 26 - 31 a couple of times. I have rewritten Genesis 1: 26 - 31 in order so that it may reflect my personal philosophies and theologies.

I first post the uneddited version of Genesis 1: 26 - 31 and then my editted version so that comparisons may be made.


Genesis 1: 26 - 36:

"God spoke: "Let us make human beings in our image, make them reflecting our nature

So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle,

And yes, Earth itself, and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.'

God created human beings; he created them godlike,

Reflecting God's nature. He created them male and female.

God blessed them: 'Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take Charge!

Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.'

Then God said, 'I've given you every sort of seed-bearing plant on Earth

And every kind of fruit-bearing tree, given them to you for food.

To all animals and all birds, everything that moves and breathes,

I give whatever grows out of the ground for food.' And there it was.

God looked over everything he had made; it was so good, so very good!"


I rewrote the passage to go as follows:

"Mother Nature spoke: "Let us make the Universe, Stars, and Planets in their own Natural image, make them reflecting our nature

So the cycles of life of the Planet Earth is responsible for the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the cattle, every animal that moves on the face of Earth.'

Nature of Earth evolved human beings; she created them in their own Natural Image,

Reflecting Goddess and Gods nature, all living creatures are made male and female.

Mother Nature blessed them: 'Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Be fruitfull!

Coexist Peacefully with the fish in the sea and birds in the air, for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.'

Then Mother Nature provided all living things every sort of seed-bearing plant on Earth, and every kind of fruit-bearing tree, given them to you for food.

To all animals and all birds, everything that moves and breathes,

Nature gives whatever grows out of the ground for food.' And there it was.

Mother Nature Gaia then looked over everything she had made; it was so good, so very good!"


Ki No Ronin

[ 30 October 2004: Message edited by: Ki No Ronin ]


From: New Westminster | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 31 October 2004 12:02 AM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm glad you enthusiastically rose to the challenge of re-writing fact. Perhaps they should make a book of Ki No Ronin. We take out Revelations or Corinthians, whichever one you hate more.

Can I just say that I love how long and colourful this thread is?


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ravenscript
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6803

posted 01 November 2004 03:29 PM      Profile for Ravenscript     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Budd Campbell writes: "Well, I have been filmed a couple of times and it's my experience that it does. If certain techniques are used, I suppose that effect could be reduced, or enlarged if you want. But definitely there is pressure on actors to be as light as possible."

I have to second Zoot on this as a filmmaker myself. One of the reasons why the "myth" of the camera adding ten pounds has been perpetuated has to deal with lighting: if insufficent light is used to create shadows on the face (called the modelling light in the biz), even the thinnest face can look rounded. Another common mistake is too much light... giving the face a flat, uniform appearence (ie/ making it seem rounder by washing out detail). Camera angle is another major factor, because its placement can accentuate, exaggerate or play down the angles that shape the face and/or body. So, you can make someone look much thinner or heavier just through the use of angle and light. Hence, by shooting a person right, you can as easily "remove" ten pouds as "add" it.

It's culture, not the camera. Although there's always been pressure on actors to be thin (both men and women... Judy Garland and Orsen Welles are just two examples), you can see a very distinct change in preferred body type occur in the early sixties when the ideal went from curves to angles with the emergence of the "gamine" girl in fashion (ie/ Twiggy) and its restatment in the late 80s with the "waif."

We've never really departed from this body image since that time.


From: Regina | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 01 November 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
a lot of 'guys' seem to believe that sitting around, watching tv sports, eating chips and drinking beer is their pre-ordained function on this earth.

I know more "guys" who strive to reach this ideal, viewing it as next to idyllic.


quote:
you can make someone look much thinner or heavier just through the use of angle and light. Hence, by shooting a person right, you can as easily "remove" ten pouds as "add" it.

Makes me think of Oprah, arguably the best-lit woman on television at this time. Have you seen her lately? Man, is she looking gooood!!!

Is the internet a media? Because I would like to weigh in on its affect on my relationships. I have developed several good friendships with people online (mostly women in my demographic) - but more importantly, the 'net has reunited me with an acquaintance (sp?) with whom I lost touch nearly 10 years ago. He is now a prospective long-term partner. So, I think some forms of media can actually bridge some gaps left in the wake of developing technologies.

PDN, I am familiar with the Lilith story. In fact, I wrote an essay on her as well as a poem honoring her. I thank you for invoking her name here, thus giving this thread a renewed credibility.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Budd Campbell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7019

posted 01 November 2004 09:41 PM      Profile for Budd Campbell        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ravenscript:
One of the reasons why the "myth" of the camera adding ten pounds has been perpetuated has to deal with lighting: if insufficent light is used to create shadows on the face (called the modelling light in the biz), even the thinnest face can look rounded. Another common mistake is too much light... giving the face a flat, uniform appearence (ie/ making it seem rounder by washing out detail). Camera angle is another major factor, because its placement can accentuate, exaggerate or play down the angles that shape the face and/or body. So, you can make someone look much thinner or heavier just through the use of angle and light. Hence, by shooting a person right, you can as easily "remove" ten pouds as "add" it.


I'll have to remember this the next time I get my picture taken! Thanks for the explanation.


From: Kerrisdale-Point Grey, Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca