re: the comments on the too much cooking article (nathan myhrvold).

She rocks. Not on the side of evil.

So there. Thhhhpt.

Hans

The first thing I noticed about the two pictures is that the cover model is easily identifiable as being the same woman in the second photo. Knowing nothing about what this woman might look like in an everyday situation, I would say that the cover photo is actually closer to reality than the slightly bedraggled woman in the second, even sans lip ring. It just looks like she's wearing good makeup and has some good lighting, not like they airbrushed her out of recognition. In the second photo, I see a cute young woman in need of sleep and a good hairbrushing. I feel bad for her only because one of her friends thought the cover photo looked nothing like her.

Hint to friends and family of people who end up on magazine covers: unless it's a really egregious airbrushing job (like when that magazine made Kate Winslet like six inches taller), the proper response is either "You look great!" or "They didn't do you justice." Righteous indignation is unbecoming if the subject herself doesn't share your sentiments.

In regards to Fried, I agree with Hans: she rocks.

That guy is such an ignorant douche. Just look at the URL:

for-shame-wired-goes-glam-and-photoshops-a-lady-scientist-beyond-recognition/

So wired is wrong not for photoshopping a woman scientist, and not for photoshopping a female scientist, but for photoshopping a lady scientist.

Basically, he's an Internet White Knight, which is very far from being a feminist, though the feminists usually don't realize that.

"Hey Lady!" (Did you just read that in Jerry Lewis' voice?)

To me, she's merely nice looking, rather than pretty (in either picture). Ironically, I think she looks better in the old picture, even "after a 20 hour flight" and with short hair and a lip ring (and I don't particularly like lip rings or short hair on women).

But as for Cord Jefferson, why is he focussing on a scientist's appearance anyway?

I think she looks prettier in the short hair photo. I could do without the lipring but the glasses are nice. In the made-up, professional cover shot they've made her jaw look too strong and ruined the lines of her face.

I don't think it's airbrushed or photoshopped though. Anyone who done or participated in glamour shots knows how much difference makeup and lighting can make.

Most of the criticism you'll see against photoshopping is just an underhanded PC way to attack attractive young women. You'll notice that Jezebel and The Frisky never care when an older woman is touched up a bit, only when pretty younger women are. When you get into it, there's the attitude that these women should deliberately make themselves unattractive, or they're not 'real'. It's the same attitude that you'll see towards thin and fit women. That they're not 'real women' because they're not fat.

It seems extremely petty to me to pick on this young women, who's probably never had anyone make much of her appearance. Way to steal her moment bitches!

Boy, these people are really gonna go nuts if they notice Danica McKellar!

And just to tweak one guy in particular, there's no Photoshop here!

Even if they did some photochopping on her image fr the cover, I thought the modern take on the old "Yes We Can!," Rosie the Riveter art was appropriate and really quite clever.

Cover art and verisimilitude are not necessarily bedfellows. Oh my gawd! "Rolling Stone" used a picture of a "Jersey Shore" troll on a rocket! That rocket is too small to put anything in space and no one on Jersey Shore is a rocket scientist! Alert the media!

Read the comment chain - it's hilarious. I didn't see a single comment, before or after Limor's in-chime that agreed with him.

It was supposed to be a scathing piece about how looks are so important to people that they will change the facts about a person to achieve their aims.

What's the toxic level of Irony, cause I'm damn close.

"Where Photoshopping makes no sense at all, not even a little, is in the world of science."

The thing that bothers me about this is the idea that somehow "lady" scientists shouldn't care what they look like. We are women just like any others--some of us are pretty, some of us aren't, but in any field, presenting yourself outwardly as well as you can is important. I take care of my looks, and feeling like I'm attractive, to be honest, helps me in my job. That's a combination of the fact that the reality is that outward appearance is the first thing people see and judge you on and that feeling attractive gives me the confidence to speak up and share my ideas, i.e., to back up my outward appearance with my intellect. I wish people could drop the notion that smart does not equal pretty!

"I wish people could drop the notion that smart does not equal pretty!"

I've never had that notion - though there have been cases where it wasn't important. I have heart problems talking to the likes of Tracy Scoggins or Claudia Christian - to name two beautiful women you have a chance of knowing - because there is a fire behind their eyes. Things matter to them. They are aware.

Like our Flaming Wite-Out™ hostess. That's a very good thing!

"I wish people could drop the notion that smart does not equal pretty!"

The reason that that stereotype endures is because it's true.

@sorry -

Then you're hanging around with the wrong women.

I wish people could drop the notion that smart does not equal pretty!

I think the stereotype you are thinking of is that pretty girls cannot be smart girls.

It is clearly true that smart does not equal pretty. I have known people who are pretty & smart as well as some who are pretty & dumb. Of course ugly & smart and ugly & dumb people exist also. Not to mention people who are pretty smart.

I don't see anything in the pic that could not be done with make-up & lighting and/or lens filters. I don't see it as a big deal.

I should have said "...smart *can't* equal pretty", i.e, that she must have been photoshopped to look that good.

There are fundamental differences between what used to be done in the developer's studio, and what often gets done today in Photoshop. That said, there clearly were SOME enhancements done to this photo, even if it was limited to adding a subtle glow or smoothing out complexion. I've never seen anyone either in person or in photos who had that kind of appearance without SOME modification, and I've done enough work in both photography and computer imagery to see the hallmarks of it.

On the other hand, there's nothing really wrong with that, it's just taking what's there and enhancing it a little bit. No different than wearing makeup, really, as long as they don't start changing the structure of the person underneath.