Beth Ditto's Body Retouched To Be Larger In Love Magazine

Is Photoshopping OK When It Makes Someone’s Body Bigger?

Posted by: Catherine Strawn Filed in: news
10:30AM, Tuesday June 16th 2009

I think we all agree that magazines have gone a little overboard with Photoshopping photos in a quest for perfection on their beautiful, glossy pages. It can be detrimental to women’s attitudes about our own bodies when we see models with pencil-like legs and whittled-down waists. But what about when photo retouching makes women larger than they are in real life? Is that also bad for us “real” women?

In an interview with The Sunday Times, singer Beth Ditto of Gossip said the photos of her on the cover and inside the first issue of Love magazine were altered… to make her size 28 body appear even bigger:

“Katie Grand [Love‘s editor] showed me the pictures and said, ‘Can you tell what we Photoshopped?’ I was, like, ‘No,’ and she goes, ‘We made you bigger!’

Beth Ditto is a very large woman, and adding or subtracting a pound or two wouldn’t make a noticeable difference to her size, but the fact that it was done takes away from the reality of the pictures. Does making a large woman bigger have as negative an effect on how we view our bodies as seeing the skinny-minis? Possibly. It’s great that big-time fashion labels see Ditto as a fashion icon and make her one-off versions of their creations to wear to events and in photo shoots (not everyone in magazine photos should be a twig), but her health is never discussed. Is she obese, or just plus-sized? Does she exercise, or is she a heart attack waiting to happen? By making a plus-sized fashion icon even more plus-sized, I hope we’re not creating a different ideal body where women add pounds to their own bodies, thinking, I can’t get Keira Knightley’s body, but Beth Ditto’s is just a hamburger away! [Times UK]

comments

raqueleza
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 10:48 am: [report]

Photoshopping her bigger…what about the skin imperfections that very overweight people have? The first thing I thought when I saw this cover was “Where are the stretch marks? The cellulite dimples?” Talk about portraying obesity in a certain light! If they’re going to do something, do it all the way. Even Kim Kardashian had her cellulite splashed all over the place.

Miss M
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 10:51 am: [report]

In a way it makes no difference whether someone is Photoshopped to look bigger or smaller, the message being portrayed is the same -one’s own body is not good enough. You’ll find at both ends of the weight spectrum, there will always be women who are not happy with their bodies. The want bigger boobs, or smaller thighs. As long as Photoshop is being used for these “adjustments”, women will never learn to accept their own bodies!

Justine Fields
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 12:05 pm: [report]

@raqueleza I totally agree. Add some cellulite along with the pounds if that’s what you’re going for.

How about getting some average sized ladies on the cover of magazines? Maybe that’ll do wonders for self-esteem… enough with the extremes!

Nutmeg
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 12:20 pm: [report]

I can understand the statements against photoshopping, but as a former designer, let me point out something to ‘normal’ degrees of photoshopping.

Our eyes and brain are selective to detail, sometimes ignoring it when it suits us. It’s keyed to survival of all things. You’d be surprised at how much we ignore in person, even a beautiful one, but how quickly we see it when it is pictured up close. (Toe Thumbs?)

I’m not trying to excuse every usage of the program, but I don’t think condemning it as an evil against self image is appropriate either. Airbrushing, lighting, hair coloring, clothing styles, and makeup have been around a lot longer to change our perception of people.

aries3_04
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 06:13 pm: [report]

regardless of the photoshopping, I think it’s a tasteful, artistic cover. It is nice to see a woman who isn’t a toothpick on a magazine cover. And why add the cellulite? the only covers that aren’t photoshopped are ones where the celebs opt not to. As shallow as this sounds, it draws attention to her complexion and skin (in a good way) to have her look flawless!

snap
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 06:15 pm: [report]

tasteful? she’s humping a tutu!

aries3_04
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 06:19 pm: [report]

let me rephrase; compare it to legs-spread pornography. visit an art museum.

raqueleza
wrote on June 16 2009 @ 08:25 pm: [report]

@aries3_04 I highly doubt Beth Ditto has that flawless, porcelain skin she does on the cover. There was undoubtedly stretchmarks, broken capillaries and cellulite airbrushed away—they’re not fooling anyone. They should just leave it in there if they want to make a statement about large women.

Infamous
wrote on July 12 2009 @ 07:55 pm: [report]

Marc Jacobs made this cover into a t-shirt.

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