Who would dare mess with the beauty that is Dita Von Teese? She doesn’t say, but she did share this picture on her Instagram account of herself extravagantly Photoshopped. (By the same people who did this, maybe?) Her hair color and style are completely different, her makeup is changed, and that lovely ivory complexion is traded for a LiLo-ian spray tan. That’s no Dita Von Teese at all, that’s just someone in Malibu’s third wife. She’s hot in her own way … but I’ll keep regular Dita, thanks.
“I know that I felt really like Vogue supported me and wanted to put a depiction of me on the cover. I never felt bullied into anything; I felt really happy because they dressed me and styled me in a way that really reflects who I am. And I felt that was very lucky and that all the editors understood my persona, my creativity and who I am. … A fashion magazine is like a beautiful fantasy. Vogue isn’t the place that we go to look at realistic women, Vogue is the place that we go to look at beautiful clothes and fancy places and escapism and so I feel like if the story reflects me and I happen to be wearing a beautiful Prada dress and surrounded by beautiful men and dogs, what’s the problem? If they want to see what I really look like go watch the show that I make every single week.”
Slate caught up with Lena Dunham for her reaction to the non-controversy of her Vogue cover and the minute Photoshopping which occurred therein. You can read Lena’s full reaction over at Slate. I think the “Girls” creator/star handled questions about this well — although Slate blogger Katy Waldman is criticizing her for upholding “punishing, unnatural body norms” or something. Uh, did we look at the same pictures? Lena wasn’t airbrushed to the point where you didn’t recognize her anymore; as the before-and-after images show, there was minor slimming. It was truly Lena-Dunham-as-Photographed-by-Vogue. Frankly, I’m really happy to see someone who looks more like me than yet another twig-thin starlet (cough Allison Williams cough). We always ask to have a more “normal”-sized woman on the cover of women’s magazines. We finally got one. Seriously, let’s not complain about evvvverything, people. [Slate] [Photo: Vogue]
Yesterday, the lady blog Jezebel posted that they were willing to pay $10,000 for unretouched photos from Lena Dunham’s Vogue cover shoot, writing:
Our desire to see these images pre-Photoshop is not about seeing what Dunham herself “really” looks like; we can see that every Sunday night or with a cursory Google search. She’s everywhere. We already know what her body looks like. There’s nothing to shame here. Nor is this rooted in criticism of Dunham for working with Vogue. Entertainment is a business, after all, and Vogue brings a level of exposure that exceeds that of HBO. This is about Vogue, and what Vogue decides to do with a specific woman who has very publicly stated that she’s fine just the way she is, and the world needs to get on board with that. Just how resistant is Vogue to that idea? Unaltered images will tell.
Today, Jezebel has posted those unretouched images, which they said they received within two hours of their original post. The comparisons between the altered and unaltered images are so unremarkable, I’m almost surprised Jezebel posted them. I say “almost” because I’m assuming they had to fork over the promised $10K and likely want to get their money’s worth — in traffic if not in impact. The unaltered images are unremarkable in that they show what we already know — that Vogue Photoshopped Lena Dunham’s photos just as they Photoshop every photo in the magazine. But — and this probably came as a bit of bummer to Jez, considering how much dough they spent — the before and after shots of Dunham are not all that different, and are certainly not an example of the egregious retouching they no doubt hoped for. In fact, the biggest differences between the original photos and the ones that ran in the magazine have little to do with Dunham at all. Keep reading »
Oh, hey, I didn’t think you felt uncomfortable enough this morning so I wanted to show you this: ”pageant glitz retouching” for little girls for beauty pageants. Available on Etsy.com for only $15 a pop, your toddler can go from “before” to “after” with makeup, stray on tan, smoothed skin, highlights and teeth whitening. The “glitz” option morphs your four-year-old into a 17-year-old girl for that “Toddlers & Tiaras” filming. Or anywhere else frosted lipstick is “in” for kindergarteners. [Etsy.com]
Jane Austen is the newest face on Britain’s 10 pound note. Yay feminism, right? Well, hold your horses, sister suffragette, because now Austen’s biographer is howling about an airbrushing scandal. Keep reading »
It’s so common to see women on magazines Photoshopped into some kind of chitinous, spindly, segmented monster that we don’t always look twice unless something truly bizarre is going on (like this model who could destroy Tokyo in her high-low dress, or this picture of Megan Fox Photoshopped to look like another woman entirely). But it’s not just women’s magazines that are going crazy with the office copy of CS Elements, the men are at it as well. Sometimes it takes a really ridiculous monster man to remind us of that. Read more on The Gloss…
It’s hard out there for a nipple. Or at least, it must be — that’s what we’ve got to assume based on the fact that so many lingerie models seem to be missing theirs these days. As we attempted to shop for sexy V-Day lingerie, we were struck by all of these hapless models, who’ve gone through life (or, ha! at least a lingerie catalog photoshoot) sans nips. So we decided to do some serious investigating to find out where all these nipples have run off to…
Check out more sexy Valentine’s Day-worthy lingerie on our Pinterest board!
Keep reading »
“My weight was a very big issue when I started. I was then — and am now — a very normal size 10. But that’s not acceptable. Everyone’s aware of it. It’s partly because fashion, film and television have become so interdependent. Increasingly, it’s actresses doing the big fashion advertising campaigns and now there’s no distinction between actresses and models. There’s no way I could ring up a company that was lending me a red carpet dress and say, ‘Do you have it in a 10?’ Because all the press samples are an eight —I would say a small eight. If you want the profile, you have to lose the weight. … It’s difficult because if I refuse to do any magazines at all, my work, I think, would suffer in a very immediate way. But when I appear in these magazines, I know I’m being ‘trimmed’. I’m being airbrushed a lot. And I know that people are accepting those images and are under the impression that that is really how my body looks, that I’m hairless and sexless and weigh 90 lbs. That really worries me. And I really don’t know what to do except talk about it.”
– Romola Garai plays a pioneering woman in journalism on the kickass BBC drama “The Hour” and it turns out she’s just as rad in real life. I find it fascinating that she’s aware she’s being airbrushed in magazines and feels guilty about women who look at her and think it’s the real deal. Photoshop is not going anywhere, so we all have to make peace with it somehow; it should not be too much to ask that Photoshop does not change the fundamental way we look. If I were a celebrity, I feel like I’d be okay with having a zit airbrushed off or something. But 20 lbs? That’s a bit much. [Telegraph UK]