GQ has put up behind-the-scenes video from their January Jones cover shoot—which looks like amazing fun, BTW—and, in my opinion, the footage totally supports the theory that the photo department did some major retouching on her bosom. We wondered earlier if Jones’ braless boobs were amplified—they certainly seemed to be awfully big and perky without a lick of support. In the video we get a number of views of Jones’ cleave from the side and girlfriend seems to be rocking a rack that would fit into my B-cup bras, not the Jessica Simpson-esque curves she’s got on the mag’s cover. I don’t get it. Jones looks lovely and sexy au natural! What’s with the supersizing, GQ?

Those of you who’ve looked carefully at the new cover of GQ probably noticed that January Jones’ boobs look, in a word, amazing. And, uh, much bigger than one would’ve thought from skinny Betty Draper? A “source” from inside the magazine squealed and told the New York Post, “They definitely did some significant retouching.” But now GQ‘s photo editor has shot back with this statement:

“Yes, they’re real. And they’re spectacular. People think that a person will look the same in every photograph, but that just doesn’t happen ... Terry [Richardson] likes to work with harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow—that, and body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger. January Jones needed no help. Trust me.”

Trust me? Doesn’t he sound like a football player in the locker room bragging about the girl he got to first base with after the school dance? Do you agree that the rotundness of her chest could be a lighting issue, or were these totally digitally enhanced?

You believed French women looked gorgeous naturally, didn’t you? Quel suprise! Airbrushing is causing unrealistic body images and encouraging eating disorders, said a French politician on Monday as she proposed warning labels on digitally enhanced images.  Parlimentarian Valerie Boyer and 50 other French politicians want a “health warning” on airbrushed pics. All enhanced photos would be accompanied by this line: “Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person.” Under the proposal in France, a company that didn’t include the warning on their retouched ads would be slapped with a trés mal fine of a $54,930, or up to 50 percent the cost of the advertisement. The French proposal comes on the heels of a suggestion by British pols for warning labels of their own. But what we want to know is how long until such a proposal comes to the States, where we just love our Photoshop? (And can you imagine what Anna Wintour would have to say about it?) [Yahoo]

On the heels of French Elle‘s no-makeup or retouching issue, Australian teen magazine Dolly is highlighting more natural photographs, as well. Most of the June “airbrush-free” issue’s photographs are un-retouched and labeled a “Retouch Free Zone” stamp.

We’re all for more reality in magazines, especially those geared toward girls. When I was devouring teen and women’s magazines at a younger age, I had no idea that retouching existed, and I thought I was the only person in the world who had visible pores on my face. While it’s great that this issue is happening (and will likely be repeated due to the response its getting, according to Dolly editor-in-chief Gemma Crisp), there might be some unfortunate effects.

Fox News had two women on “America’s Newsroom” to discuss the extreme close-up photograph of Sarah Palin on this week’s cover of Newsweek. Andrea Tantaros, a Republican media consultant, said it is “a clear slap in the face in the face at Sarah Palin. Why? Because it’s unretouched. It highlights every imperfection that every human being has. We’re talking unwanted facial hair, pores,  wrinkles.” Julia Piscitelli of the Women and Politics Institute at American University disagreed, saying that it’s nice to see a beautiful woman in her natural state for once. Watching the video segment is painful. At once point, Tantaros starts speaking over Piscitelli: “This is mortifying, Julia! This is mortifying!” What the program didn’t discuss is that the article’s headline is “The Palin Problem,” and magazines actually use photos to convey the message of the accompanying article. The cover photo is reminiscent of a microscope’s close inspection, and the article attempts to investigate Palin in a similar way. Another factor not discussed: News magazines try to stay away from the Frankenstein photo retouching that fashion magazines do on models.

Honestly, Tantaros’ rant only makes me want to go out and buy the issue so I can see what a pretty face like Palin’s looks like with all its imperfections.

Just like every other impressionable tween, I saw models in magazines and felt a little bad about myself because my body didn’t look like theirs. I’m a smart girl, but it didn’t really set in that these were not their bodies (or faces, even) until I worked at a magazine and saw how photos were tweaked—who wants to look at pages of ugly people? On Newsweek.com, a writer takes part in a photo shoot, then goes through the lengthy retouching process, demonstrating how much work it actually takes to make someone look “flawless”.