What is beauty? "Hollywood Eyes"

[Vautrin]

So I was bored and looking at random photoshop tutorials and came across one called hollywood eyes.

You increase size of the eyes to 105%. You decrease the size of the nose from 90% to 95%

So I figured I'd try it out, and was wondering, is one really more beautiful than the other?

Sorry about the exposure being a little different -- I converted using silver efex and getting the settings spot on for the second conversion was difficult

According to the tutorial, this is done in most magazine cover photos, etc.

photo a:

photo b:


Procedure is quite simple:

Select a square including both eyes
Hit Command-T (on the mac -- no idea about PC), and scale her eyes up to 105%
Use the eraser, select a brush that's not 100% see through. Go around her eyes so that they blend in with the below
Repeat with the nose (but make it smaller)

 

[deeky]

I have to admit, I had to look close to be sure of the difference. But when I saw the first pic, my thought was that her eyes were too big and looked unnatural. I think the editing can work, especially in that small of an adjustment. But it has to be with the right model. If they already have big eyes or a small nose, pushing it any farther will make it feel more akward than beautiful.

But then again, I am very much on the natural beauty side of things (in a variety of attributes).

 

[Designer]

I think I understand why magazine editors want this, but why would anyone else?

 

[Mike_E]

Bummer, I thought somebody was actually going to talk about real glamor photography (as opposed to someone taking naughty (s/) pictures and getting snooty with it)

Oh well, try this anyway https://www.google.com/search?q=hol...zIGIO4yQHIy4GYDQ&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=840&bih=462

 

[Josh66]

I have to admit, I had to look close to be sure of the difference. But when I saw the first pic, my thought was that her eyes were too big and looked unnatural.

This is what I think too. I didn't notice the difference right away, but once seen it can't be unseen, lol. The second one looks much more natural to me.

 

[bentcountershaft]

If it were not for the original being posted I'm not sure I would have noticed it.

 

[Vautrin]

But is she more attractive with big doe eyes?

 

[Josh66]

I would say "No".

 

[tirediron]

But is she more attractive with big doe eyes?

Attractiveness is almost totally subjective, so what one person may quantify as 'attractive' may not work for someone else. IMO, the 'big doe eyes' don't work in these shots because her mouth doesn't "follow" them. She looks like someone concentrating on keeping her eyes wide open, and not someone smiling and happy, looking wide-eyed and innocent.

 

[LinusM]

Interesting article and can see the relevance to magazine market but whether its something to incorporate into mainstream portraiture is another thing. On the whole i'm sure clients would prefer retouching their blemishes!

 

[ph0enix]

But is she more attractive with big doe eyes?

I would say: yes, she is but it's hard to tell for sure because the exposure is better in the first photo.