It is very commonly
known that ads have a lot of editing done before they are published. This is
especially true for cosmetics ads. That is why this ad stands out so much. It
is a cosmetics ad but it claims to not have done any retouching. This ad
features a young adult woman taking a picture of herself. At the top are the words
“Make up for ever,” right next to the makeup’s brand and line. At the bottom
right-hand corner, the ad says “You’re looking at the first unretouched makeup
ad.” The model, of course, has very well done hair and makeup, and looks like
she’s very confident in her appearance.
By
having the model pose with a camera, taking a picture of herself, the ad
creates an everyday feel. Under everyday circumstances, people want good photos
without having to edit and retouch them. By having the camera in the picture,
the advertisement is trying to show the viewer that they will look like this in
their photos, too. Basically, it is saying that when the viewer takes a photo
of themselves, they can look just like the model. This is very effective
because they are saying that the makeup will help you look beautiful, just like
the model. Plus, the model does not have editing and retouching, so reaching
the level of beauty that she has in her photos with the makeup on seems more
attainable for an everyday girl who doesn’t have access to retouching
technology. Also, by noting that the ad isn’t retouched, the viewer assumes
that their makeup could look like that. It is true that I could, but that
makeup was done by a professional. Most people can’t do makeup that well and it
would not look that good anyways, despite the fact that the ad wasn’t retouched.
The
less convincing parts of this ad are found once you dig deeper into what the ad
is saying. They claim to be “the first unretouched makeup ad.” However, there
is no way of proving that they are. This claim could be completely false and no
one would know unless they dug deeper. There could be tons of makeup
advertisements without retouching. Another fault in their advertisement is that
the average person does not know what they mean by retouching. This is very
good for the purpose of their ad, but it could be misleading to the viewer. I,
as a viewer, assumed that retouching is editing of photos after they are taken
to make them look better. However, I am not positive that is what they mean
when they say retouching. It could be something completely different, but they
want the viewer to assume it means no editing. Also, even if my assumption is
partially right, there are so many ways to get around it and still improve the
photo. Retouching could just be one form of editing, and they are using a
different form. By doing this, they would trick the reader into believing that
no editing was done, when in reality, a lot of editing could have been done.
Overall,
I thought that this was a good advertisement. Although there is some vagueness,
it does a very good job at drawing the attention of the viewer and making them
believe that they could look just as good as the model. It also seemed very
effective in emphasizing the fact that it was an everyday type of scene instead
of a high class photo shoot. I think that is was an effective advertisement.
(4-28-13)
(4-28-13)
Before I even started reading what the ad said, I found myself wondering why she was taking a picture of herself without the camera on. That seemed kinda weird to me. Why would they even include the camera then? Also, while i was reading what you wrote about how the article claimed to never have been adjusted, I realized that my definition of an edited photo was in fact different from yours. I would say that editing would also have to do with lighting, which the advertisers have obviously used to their advantage, and face touch ups. They may not have retouched her face but they definitely edited the setting.
ReplyDelete