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 »
There’s airbrushing and then there’s “who the hell is that on the cover of that magazine”? And that’s exactly the line Lucky magazine crossed with its December 2012 cover, featuring X-Factor judge Britney Spears. Readers took to Twitter to complain that the cover image looked unnatural and overly Photoshopped. They accused the mag of putting a wig on Britney, and retouching her face beyond recognition.
Keep reading »
The cover of a recent issue of LOOK magazine features Rihanna looking, well, a little wonky, no? That’s because the photo of the singer is an exceptionally poor composite, cut and pasted together from two separate images. Rihanna’s head is from a photo taken on the red carpet of the “Battleship” premiere in Japan, while her body was from a photo shot at the Stella McCartney presentation at London Fashion Week. Oh, and her body was flip-flopped and her dress was colored pink instead of green. How creative! Why not just draw a picture of the Rihanna with crayons? Seriously. [Red Carpet Fashion Awards]
Sadly, while Photoshop is a necessary and helpful tool, it is often used to excess, especially when it comes to “perfecting” celebrity images. Just look at these other lovely celeb women who’ve suffered at the hands of an overeager Photoshopper.
Holly Madison wants us to know that she isn’t perfect. And so she allowed Life and Style magazine to publish a photo of her in a bikini without retouching. I don’t see much in the cellulite department, but Holly insists that it’s there. “I have cellulite—and had it even when I was at my absolute thinnest. I’m never not going to have cellulite,” she said. “People need to just accept that it’s there.” Good point, but I’m actually more interested in that scar on her lower back that looks suspiciously like a butterfly tramp stamp that’s been lasered off. [Huffington Post]
Posing for photos sans retouching has become a big celebrity trend. And I gotta give it up for them—there is something reassuring about seeing that famously gorgeous ladies don’t just come that way and understanding that there’s an entire industry that makes people look the way they do on glossy pages. After the jump, more stars without retouching.
Vogue may be the biggest fashion magazine in the world, with the most talented photographers and retouchers at their disposal, but even they are capable of tragic Photoshop butchery. Poor cover girl Kristen Stewart. She’s been rendered almost unrecognizable in one of the photographs featured in the February issue. Surely Anna Wintour didn’t approve this?! [via Cover Awards] Keep reading »
Some say French beauty Marion Cotillard looks tired and haggard without retouching on the cover of Vanity Fair, but I think she looks like a real beauty with a real sense of vulnerability. Peep the photos from her spread inside the mag and let us know what you think of Marion without the power of Photoshop. [Fashion Indie] Keep reading »
UPDATE: So, the people who own the unretouched photos asked us to take them down, so we did, because we had to, but in the meantime, you can still see them here.
By now everyone knows that the photographs that appear in magazines are retouched, but sometimes it takes seeing an unretouched photo of one of Hollywood’s most beloved stars to realize just how much. Behold, outtakes from a photoshoot Jennifer Aniston did with Harper’s Bazaar UK in 2006. Okay, so the expression on her face is clearly mid-laugh or something, so it’s not really, um, attractive, but Jen looks like what, I dunno, I would look like after 10 hours in the sun with sand encrusted in my hair. What do you think? Do you think the retouching looks over the top? Are you surprised by the differences? [ONTD] Keep reading »
“I absolutely was not wearing makeup. Look at the cover — you can tell! My nose has been broken a couple of times. If you look at a retouched cover of me and you look at the Marie Claire cover, you can see there’s a big difference … I really wanted to show women that I’m just a normal person. I take the pictures. I don’t know what the magazine is going to do with it after that. I don’t know what the photographer is going to do with it after that, so it was important for me to make sure that they absolutely did not retouch. I just wanted people to see how I really am.”
— Jessica Simpson responds to those who said she was indeed wearing makeup for the May cover of Marie Claire. Compare her Allure cover with the Marie Claire one. Do you believe her? [Us Weekly] Keep reading »
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
? Keep reading »