The idea that I could dislike my looks so much so as to want to apply "The Eraser" to my face is kind of saddening. (Thoguh please note that I don't mean to talk down anyone who wears any kind of make-up, it's just the name of this particular product that kind of turns me off.)

I noticed the Julia Roberts ad a while back while flipping through a magazine. One interesting detail I picked up was that while here face was almost completely rebuilt in photoshop, the editor did nothing to the reflections in her eyes, which have well defined reflections of the studio and photographer.

Just a guess, but it's almost as if they left that small detail in the photo so as to give it an "authenticity". Maybe even a post production addition?

So, the different patches on their faces are supposed to show where the makeup is and where it isn't, right?

I guess this is the point, but I have trouble telling the difference, especially in the Julia Roberts. I can see the difference because the color is a little different, but when I first saw the image of this ad I thought that the rectangular shape on her face was cause because it was a scan of a magazine where you could lift up that rectangular flap and get a makeup sample or something. It didn't even occur to me that that was supposed to be the "old ugly make-up-less Julia Roberts" that this product magically transforms. (Because when I think of ladies who "need" tons of makeup to look conventionally attractive and young, I think of Julia Roberts. Right.)

Uh, I can't even tell which part of Julia is supposed to be natural and which is the make-up.  I only see a slight color difference, and I didn't even notice that much until I looked at the comments.  Maybe the difference would be more noticeable on a larger screen?  Or a larger ad?  Which makes me wonder is ANYONE'S face would look "good" at 20x magnification without Photoshop.  We all have pores and wrinkles.  We're human after all, not dolls.

"Then again, L’Oreal is getting a lot of attention from the news media (and blogs, erg) and these images are going up everywhere, for free."

Yeah, a lot of negative attention. Their work is being pulled apart which is good.

When I saw the second one, I immediately thought that the "effect the product could not achieve" was the Brazil-style elastic skin pulling.  And my reaction was, "well that is not really a product I could ever imagine wanting anyway!"

At least I couldn't see a wrinkle in the Lancome ad. She's 43 years old -even older than me- and that skin looks very smooth. Reality is a bit different:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Julia_Roberts_2011_Shankbone_3.JPG

Also, I've seen scars of nose jobs up close, and recognize one in that picture. I wonder who in Hollywood hasn't succumbed to vanity. Nia Vardalos perhaps?

The second one reminds me of all the skin-whitening commercials I see here (in China.) The model's face/body doesn't even move, and yet it digitally changes. It's more than obvious that digital manipulation is responsible, yet these products continue to sell.

What I find bizarre is that these ads aren't different from any beauty ads one sees. They all look overly photoshopped and unreal, especially the ones for mascara. Why have they just picked on these?

Soo...

When ads have to "accurately illustrate" the product and its effects on you, does that mean that I can sue the next time I drink a beer and no bikini-clad supermodel jumps me ?

What about Axe ? I mean to call the promoted effects exaggerated is a gross understatement.