Full Credits

Stats & Data

March 01, 2010


I'm probably just being dense by taking the time to note this, but I find it really frustrating when I'm trying to see WHY and HOW a beauty cream has kept Andi MacDowell and Dianne Keaton looking so "young", and there's so much filter that I can't actually even see their face. It's supposedly showing you these "dramatic" "revolutionary" "results", BUT the lighting/filter makes it impossible to see their face! I suppose that's the point LOL You're supposed to just assume they are lying about it and not actually want to see the face NOT filtered. For me it's like "I don't want to know what lighting and camera work can do, I want to see what your product can do." On a side note, I also find it very disingenuine when they do a "before" and "after" shot where the "before" picture has no lighting, hair unbrushed/kept, and, like, NO MAKE UP and then the after picture is all photoshop, lighting, hair smooth...it's kind of obvious, no?? How does that sell THE PRODUCT???  It has nothing to do with anything!!  They should take the best possible picture before AND after to give you a legitimate sense of what something can do for you:)