This week, the retro fashion shopping site ModCloth made a public commitment to transparency in the media by signing a pledge let customers know if they Photoshop their models.
The Heroes Pledge for Advertisers, which is a campaign of the Brave Girls Alliance, asks companies to commit to informing users if they tangibly alter a model’s appearance in any way, reading: Keep reading »
What would Botticelli’s Birth of Venus look like if the star of the painting had been airbrushed? If famous works of art had been created today, they might have a whole different look.
Lauren Wade, photo editor at TakePart, used GIFs to alter the body sizes of some of history’s most beautiful portrayals of the female body to fit today’s beauty standards, and the results are pretty appalling. We’ve all seen the photos and videos of just how dramatic the effects of Photoshop are, but for some reason, watching these paintings transform feels so much more jarring. The full collection can be seen here. Maybe Vogue and Glamour should take a look at them too and take a cue from the original paintings – softer bodies are just as beautiful as today’s supermodels! [TakePart]
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]