Further Proof GQ Super-Sized January Jones’ Breasts
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
celebs, video
1:30PM, Friday October 23rd 2009
GQ has put up behind-the-scenes video from their January Jones cover shoot—which looks like amazing fun, BTW—and, in my opinion, the footage totally supports the theory that the photo department did some major retouching on her bosom. We wondered earlier if Jones’ braless boobs were amplified—they certainly seemed to be awfully big and perky without a lick of support. In the video we get a number of views of Jones’ cleave from the side and girlfriend seems to be rocking a rack that would fit into my B-cup bras, not the Jessica Simpson-esque curves she’s got on the mag’s cover. I don’t get it. Jones looks lovely and sexy au natural! What’s with the supersizing, GQ?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
anoldguy
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:45 pm: [report]
This is probably the kiss of death among the stylish readers of The Frisky, but this particular old guy much prefers a “B,” and often, even an “A” to something, um, more filling. I agree that Ms. Jones looks just fine without the Photoshop addition.
Lynn
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:50 pm: [report]
You can push boobs together and make them look bigger without airbrushing - I believe that they didn’t photoshop them bigger but it’s obvious they had some help.
belindajulie
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 12:59 pm: [report]
I actually believe that GQ didn’t do airbrushing, but I do think they got very creative with lighting. At first I thought it looked like she was a large C/D, but with some great lighting (and if you notice her jacket—if her boobs really were that big there would be more filling in on the sides) I buy that that they didn’t photoshop.
_jsw_
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:04 pm: [report]
Looking at the video, and with images from a few minutes of Googling, I don’t think she was “resized” at all. Airbrushed? Of course. But resized? I don’t think so.
MuchoMacho
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:08 pm: [report]
big boobs sag. sad but true. and why does the media insist on trying to convince me jessica simpson is hot? she isnt. shes dumb. and not pretty. chin is too big. and she put on some serious weight. i know i might get flayed for typing that on this particular site, but its true. shes not pretty. stop with the jessica simpson love.
vtgirl1993
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:21 pm: [report]
Boobs are different all around. My friend and I are exactly the same size, but her’s start around her armpits and mine are right up front. This means she looks flat (unless we mash them together in a rigid, underwire bra), while I look stacked and bigger than I am. I think Ms. Jones probably had some airbrushing, but she’s exactly the size she says she is.
H. Blue
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:33 pm: [report]
Her boobs aren’t THAT big on the cover, and they aren’t THAT small in the vid - I don’t think they look changed at all. Also, B is respectable. I’d love to be a B if I would be guaranteed perkiness.
pinkjellyfish
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]
Definitely re-sized up a cup. She has beautiful natural breasts, only fake ones could do that without a lot of help. Either way, they’re gorgeous! I want that black bra she wears in the photo shoot…
There’s no way those boobs on the cover could fit into this dress:
http://z.about.com/d/weddings/1/0/Q/8/JanuaryJonesFrazerHarrison.jpg
bumbler
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]
I think they kept her natural shape but by significantly deepening the shadows around her boobs they made them look much fuller than the actually are. It’s the same theory as the celebs who use bronzer to actually draw in cleavage before a red carpet appearance.
Riley
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]
Resize or not, she remains stunningly beautiful.
Anyone going to comment on the pose she did in front of a car? Looks like more violence promotion…
_jsw_
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 02:26 pm: [report]
This (moderately NSFW, but no more so that the CQ cover) image, particularly when compared to the GQ cover, strongly suggests that all they did, if anything, was darken the area under her breasts, and that very well could have been done with lighting.
@Riley: That’s what I thought as well. She couldn’t stop them, though. They had her up against a wall.
Riley
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 02:55 pm: [report]
Use for JSW comments.
_jsw_
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 03:18 pm: [report]
Thank you, Riley. I’ll be here all week.
I’ve composited the image from the other site, the GQ cover, and the other GQ images here. Cleavage galore. But, really, we needed some in-depth investigation.
I think it’s pretty clear that, if they Photoshopped her, they did a good job of doing the same to all of her images. Me? I think it was just lighting and a very little bit of retouching.
kalibrooke
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 03:30 pm: [report]
@bumbler, i think you nailed it! it definitely looks like they deepened the shadows and possibly added definition higher up to make them look fuller.
@_jsw_ nice evidence; all mag editors these days are waaay too photoshop-happy, even since just 5 years ago!
anoldguy
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
OK, you’ve convinced me, shadows, etc., but no Photoshop. That said, I still prefer A’s and B’s to C’s and D’s. Meanwhile, Ms. Jones qualifies as gorgeous no matter what size she’s wearing.
develange
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:22 pm: [report]
this bugs me: a D cup does not automatically mean huge. A 32 or 34 D are nowhere near huge.
After stalking the video, she could actually be a 32D, if she’s a 32.
cooldad
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:23 pm: [report]
Check this out from my former neighbor, a successful model:
http://5resolutions.blogspot.com/2007/08/fashion-statement-magali_02.html
GreenAura
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:31 pm: [report]
@develange: She’s probably a 32C then, because I’m a 32D and mine are much larger than those
bumbler
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:35 pm: [report]
32 looks about right. I guessing but her ribs only look slightly more splayed than my 28.
develange
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 04:36 pm: [report]
heh OK, fair enough. I’m a 32D as well. let’s start a club.
foodiecutie
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 05:22 pm: [report]
maybe they used boob lifters. i have worn them and they definitely made my boobs look a lot bigger. i will never wear them again since people already assume they’re fake.
retro chic
wrote on October 23 2009 @ 07:07 pm: [report]
You’re both right!... Totally retouched! And totally wrangled! A good Photoshop job on fleshtones doesn’t look Photoshop’ed unless you know what to look for. As in the previous post:
Danee
wrote on October 24 2009 @ 06:19 pm: [report]
What song is this?
endubya
wrote on November 17 2009 @ 10:29 am: [report]
What’s with this alphabet-soup of descriptors for the lovely January’s bustline? All I know is that she’s a sweet little thang. Her breasts look great—as does the rest of her. I give them an A (even if they are actually a B.) Note to January from August: Please, please, do not ever (ever!) get store-bought boobs.