4 ms·

Maybe it’s the web resolution, but I can’t see what has changed in any of these (aside from the upturned north corner that they point out for you)

0_____0 4y ago
Face shape is the most evident. This is a photographer oriented post, you may have to look longer and harder to see the same things that a trained eye would immediately notice (same with graphic design).
- VSerge 4y ago
  If you have to be a photographer to see the changes (and the focus on jaws is just so odd), and you won't notice the difference if you are just a regular Joe/Jane, then what purpose do these alterations serve? As a non-photographer, apart from the photo with the strangely big jaw "fix", I can safely say I would be incapable to a) see there is a difference and b) say which image is supposed to be more beautiful.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The cover is not intended to be analysed in great detail. It's wholly a subconscious process. And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Think of it like a slightly out of tune piano key. Used during a single song. Is it really noticeable? Not to many, will it be a better recital if it was intune? Certainly.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      > And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Maybe? Doesn't what's aesthetically pleasing change from person to person? For instance, I don't find most people on magazine covers to be all that aesthetically pleasing -- but I am also aware that there are many who do.
      - psychphysic 4y ago
        There's a whole other set of niche magazines for people who like their women square jawed[0]. [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0
  - 0_____0 4y ago
    The visibility of a design choice to a layperson does not affect its value. In photo editing, the fact that these changes are invisible to you is valuable, and desirable. Our experiences in the human world are shaped by millions of tiny, and often invisible design decisions. We could surmise that a decision is invisible to us and thus meaningless, or we could practice a bit of humility and attempt to see and understand what work was done there, and how it affects us.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      > The visibility of a design choice to a layperson does not affect its value. Isn't that the exact point of the change, to increase value to potential buyers? These aren't magazines for experts.
      - 0_____0 4y ago
        Your comment and mine are compatible.
fallinghawks 4y ago
I agree a lot are subtle. The one that jumped out at me was (I think) Jennifer Aniston on the Petra cover, where they make her jaw bigger (which seems the opposite of what one would want to do).
- thomasahle 4y ago
  When they said the program "fixes" the image, they mean it undoes the photoshop. Hence the larger jaw.
  - croes 4y ago
    Original and fixed is a confusing wording. Something like "original cover" and the "changes reverted" would be more understandable.
  - fallinghawks 4y ago
    Thanks, I completely missed that.

0_____0 4y ago

Face shape is the most evident. This is a photographer oriented post, you may have to look longer and harder to see the same things that a trained eye would immediately notice (same with graphic design).

VSerge 4y ago
If you have to be a photographer to see the changes (and the focus on jaws is just so odd), and you won't notice the difference if you are just a regular Joe/Jane, then what purpose do these alterations serve? As a non-photographer, apart from the photo with the strangely big jaw "fix", I can safely say I would be incapable to a) see there is a difference and b) say which image is supposed to be more beautiful.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The cover is not intended to be analysed in great detail. It's wholly a subconscious process. And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Think of it like a slightly out of tune piano key. Used during a single song. Is it really noticeable? Not to many, will it be a better recital if it was intune? Certainly.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Maybe? Doesn't what's aesthetically pleasing change from person to person? For instance, I don't find most people on magazine covers to be all that aesthetically pleasing -- but I am also aware that there are many who do.
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      There's a whole other set of niche magazines for people who like their women square jawed[0]. [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0
- 0_____0 4y ago
  The visibility of a design choice to a layperson does not affect its value. In photo editing, the fact that these changes are invisible to you is valuable, and desirable. Our experiences in the human world are shaped by millions of tiny, and often invisible design decisions. We could surmise that a decision is invisible to us and thus meaningless, or we could practice a bit of humility and attempt to see and understand what work was done there, and how it affects us.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > The visibility of a design choice to a layperson does not affect its value. Isn't that the exact point of the change, to increase value to potential buyers? These aren't magazines for experts.
    - 0_____0 4y ago
      Your comment and mine are compatible.

fallinghawks 4y ago

I agree a lot are subtle. The one that jumped out at me was (I think) Jennifer Aniston on the Petra cover, where they make her jaw bigger (which seems the opposite of what one would want to do).

thomasahle 4y ago
When they said the program "fixes" the image, they mean it undoes the photoshop. Hence the larger jaw.
- croes 4y ago
  Original and fixed is a confusing wording. Something like "original cover" and the "changes reverted" would be more understandable.
- fallinghawks 4y ago
  Thanks, I completely missed that.