“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 »
We already know Photoshop can be used as a makeup applicator, leg-lengthener, and rib-remover, but here’s a use for it that’s much more interesting: virtual time machine. In a series titled, “Imagine Finding Me,” photographer Chino Otsuka masterfully Photoshopped her adult self into photos from her childhood, creating double self-portraits that are both haunting and mesmerizing. “I’m embarking on the journey to where I once belonged,” says Otsuka, “and at the same time becoming a tourist in my own history.” Check out a few more of her time machine photos after the jump! [Ago] Keep reading »
This Flare magazine cover is actually a couple years old, but a GIF showing the unretouched photo of Jennifer Lawrence getting shrunk down into the final cover image is currently making the rounds. Stuff like this depresses me so much. The section of her torso they shaved down in Photoshop? Those are ribs. They’re kind of important. Lawrence has jokingly expressed her love of Photoshop in the past, but in recent interviews she’s been pretty vocal about the need for more realistic bodies on screen. While discussing the decision to portray Katniss as physically strong instead of starving, Lawrence told the BBC, “I just kept saying, ‘We have the ability to control this image that young girls are going to be seeing. Girls see enough of this body that we can’t imitate, that we’ll never be able to obtain, these unrealistic expectations, and this is gonna be their hero, and we have control over that.’” Fashion magazines, it’s time to take note. [Daily Mail]
Art student Anna Hill, 24, has been using Photoshop for over a decade and knows exactly how much magazine images are digitally altered to achieve that “better than perfect” look. To illustrate this disturbing fact of modern day media, she turned her Photoshop skills on her own self portraits to create a series of mock ads for Photoshop beauty products, like the “all-in-one beauty kit” above that promises everything from perfect skin to a nose job — instantly! The ads are sharp satire, but the craziest part is how the exercise affected Hill’s own self-image. “One thing I noticed when I was doing these was that when I suddenly went back to the unedited [photo of myself], it looked so wrong and kinda gross,” she said. “It made me extra aware of how skewed my perception was after looking at the edited ones for a while.” Who hasn’t felt a similar sense of shame and “wrongness” after flipping through a fashion magazine and then taking a look in the mirror?
Check out a couple more of Hill’s imaginary ads, including a limb-lengthening serum and a pore-disappearing treatment (“For that android look you’ll never achieve in real life”), after the jump! 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]