Did GQ Give January Jones A Digital Boob Job?

Posted by: Kate Torgovnick Filed in: entertainment
8:00AM, Monday October 19th 2009

Those of you who’ve looked carefully at the new cover of GQ probably noticed that January Jones’ boobs look, in a word, amazing. And, uh, much bigger than one would’ve thought from skinny Betty Draper? A “source” from inside the magazine squealed and told the New York Post, “They definitely did some significant retouching.” But now GQ‘s photo editor has shot back with this statement:

“Yes, they’re real. And they’re spectacular. People think that a person will look the same in every photograph, but that just doesn’t happen ... Terry [Richardson] likes to work with harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow—that, and body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger. January Jones needed no help. Trust me.”

Trust me? Doesn’t he sound like a football player in the locker room bragging about the girl he got to first base with after the school dance? Do you agree that the rotundness of her chest could be a lighting issue, or were these totally digitally enhanced?

comments

bogart4017
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 07:48 am: [report]

When i see her topless in person i’ll let you know…

SamL
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]

Yes I can believe GQ’s picture editor. That’s not to say the shadows and skin tone have not been enhanced by a little Photoshopping.

That said, I really don’t care that much. She looks sensational, and that’s not dependent on the size of her boobs!

Sam xxx

MadMax
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:33 am: [report]

My sister is an A cup and, with the proper bra/padding/tape she makes them look way bigger all the time. She has pics that make her look like right out of surgery for Ds.
For some it is all in the arrangement.

bethlynn00
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 08:44 am: [report]

It probably is just it some artful arranging. With the right techniques cleavage is not that hard.

retro chic
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]

Ha! Notice how GQ’s photo editor evades the retouching question and doesn’t actually deny it – only stating that they’re real. It’s both wrangling and retouching. No photo – let alone a cover shot – leaves a studio unretouched. Mags are POS items which rely on enhanced cover images to boost sales as “impulse buys,” boobs being the focus here on a men’s mag. Just business as usual.

Morphing bras, shoving and taping to do most of the work as a foundation for lighting and retouching. Even just smoothing out fleshtones can give the appearance of adding mass.

melissaann
wrote on October 19 2009 @ 06:28 pm: [report]

ALL MAGAZINE COVERS ARE RETOUCHED!

snap
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 02:10 pm: [report]

DEFINITELY digitally enhanced!

draymond
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 11:44 am: [report]

Accept this as fact…ALL magazine covers are photoshopped. Now, as to which edits were made, it is a matter of discussion.

In addition to taping and lighting and padding there is also the technique of cosmetics to enhance shadows. a little extra dark color down the middle and undersides and pow!...an extra cup size at least. and nobody would say that it isn’t ‘all natural’.

In fact, there are so many techniques to enhance the appearance of clevage one wonders why anyone goes to the bother and expense of surgery.

Shasta
wrote on October 25 2009 @ 07:17 pm: [report]

OMG!

She is so beautiful. I want to be her. Or just stare at her all day.

She is my girl crush.

Her breasts are so spectacular and REAL. THAT is what is so startling, that they’re not silicone.

Meg
wrote on October 27 2009 @ 01:03 am: [report]

Yeah, they definitely did some enhancing. Digital or otherwise, it’s not really necessary. She’s already beautiful with a petite body. I think the ‘enhancement’ makes her look less like her and more like some random topless model. I hate how they always have to sex everything up

Username:
Password:
	Auto-login on future visits Show my name in the online users list
	register \| forgotten password