web
counter
 

Rachel Weisz Ad Banned in the UK for TOO Much Photoshop

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (30)



1203340999_1024x768_seductive-rachel-weisz.jpg

This is interesting. It turns out over in the UK — where they seem to actually care about truth in advertising — if you use too much Fotoshop by Adobé and you’re trying to sell anti-wrinkle cream, the ASA will ban the ad.

Here’s the ad in question.

Rachel-Weisz-banned-LOreal-ad.jpg

Here’s a photo of Weisz without make-up (and yes, I know, I know. You’d still tap that. NOT THE POINT)

celebrities_without_makeup_29.jpg

Here’s the ASA statement (via DailyStab):

We told L’Oreal Paris to ensure that they did not use post-production techniques in a way that misrepresented what was achievable using the advertised product. Although we considered that the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Rachel Weisz’s face, we considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad … misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims ‘SKIN LOOKS SMOOTHER’ and ‘COMPLEXION LOOKS MORE EVEN’.”

Here’s L’Oreal’s defense.

“We do not believe the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using this product.”

Look: Photoshop or no, Rachel Weisz is a gorgeous woman, but that ad? Jesus, there’s not a blemish in sight. It looks like her face was sandblasted by Gods and sprinkled with fairy dust. Even her hands looks suspiciously smooth for a 41-year-old woman.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Trailer Roundup: Ghosts On A Plane, Hunting Rare Animals, Or Henry Cavill's Abs - You Choose | Adam Sandler And The Candyland Movie: (cocks gun, points at temple)









Comments

The barely-visible joint of her thumb freaks me out.

But, I'd still tap...oh, right, carry on.

Posted by: Scully at February 1, 2012 11:11 AM

The ad may not mis-represent what can be achieved with their face cream, but it definitely looks as if the cream gave her a nose job.

Posted by: PaddyDog at February 1, 2012 11:11 AM

People have PORES. I'm always pissed off when pictures of people pretend pores don't exist. And how does she move her hands or lips or even blink her eyes if there are no slight folds of skin to allow movement?

Posted by: BWeaves at February 1, 2012 11:13 AM

It's not that we in the UK have any higher standards for realism in advertising - it's that we need protecting from too much beauty. Real or not.

Have you any idea what would happen if the monotony of this bleak, desolate landscape was to be interrupted for even a second?

All I'm gonna say is: two days before the London riots, I saw a poster of Monica Bellucci posted up on a wall in North London. Coincidence?!

Posted by: zeke the pig at February 1, 2012 11:15 AM

I thought she was Dale!

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2012 11:17 AM

I think you've left out the most damning fact...she no longer looks like Rachael Weisz. We're not talking about her looking like she did when she was younger, she doesn't even look like the same person anymore in that ad. At best she looks like someone who kinda looks a little like Rachael Weisz, but not really.

At least the folks at Playboy had an excuse when they Photoshopped the Hell out Lindsey Lohan into unrecognizability; she's an unhealthy drug addict. The idea is to make people look good as themselves using this product. The only way you could look more like someone else is if you used the magic masks featured in the Mission; Impossible movies or just went under the knife altogether. So unless you're in Witness Protection or have been horribly disfigured in a fire, I cannot imagine why this would compel you to buy this.

If you need to Photshop your pictures in an advertising for make-up, maybe your product isn't that good to begin with.

Posted by: bleujayone at February 1, 2012 11:24 AM

Photos of actual people should not descend into the Uncanny Valley.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at February 1, 2012 11:25 AM

No Rowles, tapping that IS the point, tapping that is the ONLY point. You think men are really interested in anything that doesn’t have to do with tapping? You might as well had written this article in Mandarin, for men this article started and ended with the picture of Weisz with her tongue sticking out of her mouth.

Posted by: Pookie at February 1, 2012 11:29 AM

The Richardson School header photo is the real crime.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 1, 2012 11:33 AM

[quote]You think men are really interested in anything that doesn’t have to do with tapping?[/quote]

You think straight men are the target demographic for this ad?

So stretch the point a little and say that women want to look like the eminently tappable Rachel Weisz. If it's not the product that makes her even more taptastic (assuming such a thing is possible)...we'll need an actual reason to buy the product.

Posted by: Wednesday at February 1, 2012 11:35 AM

Truth in advertising? What a concept!

... It'll never work.

Posted by: , at February 1, 2012 11:39 AM

Wait....they were advertising beauty products?

Posted by: NateS1973 at February 1, 2012 11:57 AM

I think the larger crime at play here is that L'Oreal Paris apparently tried to pass off a 10 (15? 20? Circa BLUE LAGOON???) year old photo of Brooke Shields as Rachel Weisz.

Posted by: VonnegutSlut at February 1, 2012 11:59 AM

Jesus, the front part of her face looks like it's floating above the shadows in the back. I mean, fuck, can you at least bother to make it look like her face has curves in it? FACES ARE NOT FLAT. They have DEPTH.

Bless the UK.

But, I've always wondered why the actresses themselves never say anything about it. Because if anyone had any power to change things in the US, it would be the people portrayed in the ads. I mean, sure, you want to look perfect, but when you don't even look like yourself, wouldn't you be upset? I wish more of them would speak up and stop the bullshit before the ad goes to print.

Posted by: figgy at February 1, 2012 12:08 PM

Yeah...That's NOT Rachel Weisz's face.

Posted by: valerie at February 1, 2012 12:15 PM

Some confusing shit right there. The banner pic of Weisz is super sexy and it's sans photo shop. Why the hell would they mess with that type of gorgeousness? Photshopped all the beauty right off her face. "Use L'oreal products they will fuck you up something fierce." Pretty much what I'm seeing here.

Posted by: ComfortableMadness at February 1, 2012 12:33 PM

They could be selling buckets of Anthrax for all I care. If they used the header pic instead of the airbrushed B&W shot, I'd buy anything.

Tongue, please.

Posted by: PissBoy at February 1, 2012 12:43 PM

"Doing 10 things at once...it's we do."

Nice deployment of "we" in that tagline. Slyly referencing her marriage is part of the campaign. How deliciously cynical of them. You know, if they promised me a moment or two alone with Mr. Craig, I might be willing to overlook L'Oreal's animal testing and buy one of their products. Never mind the dishonesty of photoshop (I really don't care about that), no bunny needs to die so I can have skin cream.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at February 1, 2012 12:48 PM

Taptastic! It's the word of the day, possibly the week.

Posted by: MM at February 1, 2012 1:09 PM

@figgy:

I indistinctly remember Kate Winslet once publicly complaining about a photoshoot of hers where they made her body slimmer than it really was.

Posted by: FabMax at February 1, 2012 1:19 PM

As a photographer...it doesn't actually look that bad. I've definitely seen worse, but that might be because it's in black and white. If it was in color, it would look much, much worse.

There is a way to make skin look a little better/softer in Photoshop without hacking up their skin. Which is what I do. It sounds gross, but you save a type of mask of their skin with all the pores and what not there, and then after you "fix the skin", you paste that mask you saved back on top of it. Of course you have to make that mask a bit translucent other wise it's the same skin you started out with.

It's very weird.

But people are ass-holes. So it's irritating to see ads like this...especially when it's make up. I'm guessing this is for make up, right?

It also looks like they did something to her nose. I don't mess with prominent features like that, though. That's bullshit.

Actually...the more I look at it, the worse it gets.

Posted by: Candee at February 1, 2012 1:27 PM

I would like to see a year of advertising without photoshopping the models. If their product works, if the model actually uses it, then photoshopping shouldn't be needed.

And B&W always makes the skin look better, that's why it's the only way I show people picutres of me!

Posted by: Samantha at February 1, 2012 2:01 PM

All I'm gonna say is: two days before the London riots, I saw a poster of Monica Bellucci posted up on a wall in North London. Coincidence?!

Posted by: zeke the pig at February 1, 2012 11:15 AM


Always one to see through the murk, down to the heart of the issues, Zeke. The rioters in London took TV's too. What was on those TV's? Beautiful Women!!

Posted by: John G. at February 1, 2012 4:50 PM

my half-sister makes $83/hour on the computer. She has been fired but last month her pay was $7790 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site… LazyCash10.com

Posted by: Douglas at February 1, 2012 6:27 PM

I understand the need for photoshop so I am not one of the people against it but things like that pisses me off! She does not even look like herself in that damn picture! Correct imperfections okay, change the surroundings okay but don't completely change how the person looks! This is just fucking ridiculous!

Posted by: Nancy at February 1, 2012 7:28 PM

Don't care for the fake broad in the middle but the other two awww hell yeah. Even not looking her "best" I prefer real to digitally enhanced memorex.

Posted by: clancys_daddy at February 1, 2012 8:14 PM

But why is she wearing brass knuckles? She must be really pissed off at someone.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at February 1, 2012 9:21 PM

Rachel Weisz is 41? I'M 41. If anyone deserves a blast of Fotoshop by Adobe, it's me. You can see my pores from space. If someone would take the time sandblast all my pics until I'm smooth and creamy, I'd be delighted. Would save on the Botox.

Posted by: malechai at February 1, 2012 11:13 PM

I'm surprised more celebrities don't come out against this practice (besides the wonderful Winslet). After all, it might "enhance" their appearance but it's still quite insulting -
"Yeah, we here at XYZ think you're fantastic, love your work, we want you on the next cover... just not the way you actually look after being professionally styled and lit for several hours. That's just not gonna cover it. We'll need to do a complete digital overhaul to make you look hot. Mmmmkay?"

Posted by: cinekat at February 2, 2012 9:11 AM

Oh, yeah, that header pic is one of the hottest things I've ever seen.

Posted by: , at February 2, 2012 10:02 AM