This year’s Academy Awards may be over, and Leo may have gone home without a statue yet again (see #20 for a priceless reaction shot), but that doesn’t mean we can’t spend today reminiscing about how far our little Leo has come. This picture says it all, doesn’t it? And there’s more where that came from: People brilliantly Photoshopped 10 of the Oscar nominees into scenes with their younger selves. Click through to check out Meryl Streep, Jared Leto, Amy Adams and more hanging out with their pre-crazy-famous selves.
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.
“Once my daughter saw me on a cover where I had no freckles and said, ‘That doesn’t look like you at all!’ And then — just like a kid — ‘I like you better without them.’ Thanks!”
According to Julianne Moore, magazines pick and choose whether to keep her freckles in their photos. Some leave her skin as it is, and others airbrush those freckles right off. Moore didn’t mind so much either way, until her daughter saw a picture of her Photoshopped face and liked it better! It’s kind of funny, but I think that’s also pretty damn depressing. When someone’s own kid can tell right away that they’ve been retouched that much, we’re basically doomed as a society. Or something like that. [People]
Artist Daniel Soares thought these H&M billboards were missing a pretty important detail, so he went ahead and added it himself: a Photoshop toolbar. Voila! An honest swimsuit ad! [Upworthy]
“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 »