Now this is an appropriate use of photoshop, children.This will be the most head-spinning quote you will read all week (unless you read that story about the “new teen trend” of drinking vodka through their eyeballs – that one’s got a couple of doozies that’ll make you grab the nearest adolescent and shake them): “The editor of the top-selling health and fitness magazine in the U.S., Self, has admitted: ‘We retouch to make the models look bigger and healthier.'” Keep in mind this is the same mag that skinnified Kelly Clarkson to the point of unrecognizability not long ago. Sure you knew that everyone from catalog models to Demi Moore to WWF wrestlers is photoshopped to have thinner waists, less hip and, in the case of the wrestlers, no nipples (seriously), but did you know about the increasingly common practice of reverse photoshopping?
Robin Derrick, creative director of Vogue, explains, “I spent the first ten years of my career making girls look thinner -and the last ten making them look larger.” This isn’t the first time reverse photoshopping has appeared in the news – Cameron Diaz got her “manly” lower ab definition smoothed out for Cosmo – but the controversy erupted all over again earlier this week when this:
was transformed into this:
British mag Healthy admitted to adding about 30 pounds to model Kamila because she showed up to the photo shoot looking “really ill and unwell.” This scandal caused Leah Hardy, a former editor at Cosmopolitan, to write an article for the Daily Mail first explaining this bizarre practice (it has something to do with designer sample sizes being designed for boys needing to be modeled by women who look like boys but then photoshopped to approximate some features of a real woman so as to appeal to the real women who buy the magazines, with nary a mention of Victoria Beckham which must have taken immense restraint) and apologizing for her part in it.
I, for one, appreciate her apology. For one thing Cosmo got me into serious trouble with my parents growing up when I took a picture of my then 14-year-old sister holding my contraband Cosmo with the title “Your Orgasm” prominently displayed on the cover. It might have ended there had I not sent the picture to a few of our friends – and this being before Facebook, I actually printed it out and sent it (can you imagine?) – who then passed it to a few more friends who then… well, it got back to my parents. I don’t remember how my sister felt about her instant – and unintentional – celebrity but my parents sure weren’t amused. I had to write everyone involved letters of apology. Oh yes I did. Had it been ten years later my sister would have gone viral and I would have had to pay a professional to scrub her Google results. Who knew that Cosmo would be what makes me appreciate being old? But that is neither here nor there. It was this quote from Ms. Hardy that warmed my fashion mag-deadened heart:
“At the time, when we pored over the raw images, creating the appearance of smooth flesh over protruding ribs, softening the look of collarbones that stuck out like coat hangers, adding curves to flat bottoms and cleavage to pigeon chests, we felt we were doing the right thing. […] But now, I wonder. Because for all our retouching, it was still clear to the reader that these women were very, very thin. But, hey, they still looked great! They had 22-inch waists (those were never made bigger), but they also had breasts and great skin. They had teeny tiny ankles and thin thighs, but they still had luscious hair and full cheeks.Thanks to retouching, our readers – and those of Vogue, and Self, and Healthy magazine – never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn’t look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes. A vision of perfection that simply didn’t exist. No wonder women yearn to be super-thin when they never see how ugly thin can be.”
Did you ever think you’d live to see the day when a Cosmo editrix says, “How ugly thin can be”? Do you think we are finally realizing that there is such a thing as “too thin”? Does reverse airbrushing surprise you?
Wow. What an interesting post. That IS fascinating that they've photoshopped models to make them look bigger, healthier, etc. I know for me, that's something I've always wondered about- and to be honest, found a bit confusing. Thanks for giving me something to consider 🙂
I have never even thought about this, but that quotation is so right on! Now that I am thinking about it, I never see bones sticking out. As a, ahem, small chested girl, I have always wondered how tall, skinny people get big boobs. Genetics for some, technology for others, I guess.
huh. surprise? no.
SHOCKED yes.
it all makes me long for a moving photoshopperthing that can trail me and erase my undereyebags as I go.
Doesn't surprise me at all. I'm always rolling my eyes in disbelief at the "muscle tone" shadows that get airbrushed onto the abs, legs and arms of scrawny models who are probably incapable of picking up a 10-pound dumbbell.
Can someone explain to me why professional baseball players merit senate hearings when they use performance enhancement drugs but these flimflam artists keep tricking women with their photoshopping and their "get thin thighs by monday" articles??? Why do bloggers have to disclose whether or not they get freebies from a company before they review the product but beauty editors don't have disclose the little gifts they receive from beauty companies? I'm going to write my congressman. Or congresswoman, if I have one.
wow that's really fascinating. but it doesn't really surprise me. i think that mags are trying to cater to their bases and there is such a negative connotation to being too thin in the media. so now they get to create "perfect" women who are still unobtainable but won't get them slammed in the papers
Why don't we just shoot 12 women for a cover, then mix and match their faces and bodies to come up with the most perfect woman? And then photoshop her to be bigger in places and smaller in others?
Airbrushing sucks, whether it's adding 20 lbs or taking them off. I'm tired of living in a world where magazines falsely picture women with no wrinkles, no blemishes, no cellulite, perfect hair, etc. I mean, they photoshop Victoria's Secret models and they are absolutely stunning on their own. If they aren't worthy enough to be shown au naturale, what about the rest of us?
Also, in the day of tabloids and Perez Hilton, we can see what these women normally look like. Why photoshop them to be almost unrecognizable? Why does Vogue remove the cellulite when TMZ posts the candids?
Good for Ms. Hardy! Now if only the fashion industry would start making clothes for real people and hiring models who are actually at a healthy weight.
This is shocking! Thanks so much for posting about it. I also appreciate the editor's comment. But it’s too bad that the current editors don’t seem to have a problem with all this photoshopping. There is a real need for a natural beauty magazine with no photoshopping and truthful articles. Something equivalent to the organic food trend vs. conventionally grown food. Maybe if people like us keep complaining and boycotting standard beauty mags this will happen…
omg – I just realized I have been reverse airbrushed!! on my book flap cover, they "softened" my collarbones. I'm so trendy!!
AMEN!!!!!!
I'm not surprised. After all, this is an industry that encourages women to go under the knife as much as possible, airbrushes and photoshops models into oblivion, and STILL punishes the young models for not being "perfect." (Someone over at "Shapely Prose" put it perfectly: 100 years ago, we wore corsets and bustles and padding to project a certain image. Now we've replaced that with surgery, taking what was once an item of clothing and making it part of our bodies. )
It's also an industry that loves to photograph young women bent over, sticking their thong-covered bums right into the camera lens, shooting from the neck down to emphasize their breasts, and sticking the camera into areas only their gynecologists have gone before.
I would LOVE to see a boycott of all these magazines! But until we can get teens, tweens and young women to stop buying into all this crud, the industry will continue to flourish.
AMEN SISTER! I hadn't thought of it that way but you are so right.
Really??? On Locker Room Diaries? I'm going to have to go pull my copy out now and stare at your collarbones. See what you've done??
Taking the corset and making it part of our bodies…. wow, I had never thought of it that way before but you are so right. And people thought the Victorian age was restrictive!
I think it sucks both ways. I don't blame the magazines. I blame people who buy that crap. If enough people quit buying it then things would change b/c the dollar talks. The dollar SHOUTS. Not to be self-righteous but I rarely shop at Victoria Secret's b/c I don't want to support a business that says you have to be teeny tiny with gigantic breasts to be beautiful. Forget that. I have small breasts and NO ONE is going to make me believe that I have to mutilate my body to be beautiful. This is one big issues I have with the "fitness" industry. I've been working on a post about it for almost two years but I want to make sure it comes across as non judgmental b/c I have quite a few friends who have made different choices than I.
It kinda ticks me off that they softened Cameron's Diaz's abs. I hear women complain all the time that abs are "gross" on women. Whatever. Beauty is relative. When people can celebrate all body types thin (some women are naturally very thin), full, curvy, straight, muscular, then we will have made some progress as women.
Sorry for the mini rant on your blog. 🙂
Btw that story about you in HS is hilarious!
I consider any change to the way someone looks as false advertising.
I had not seen this Charlotte! WOW! That model did look pretty UGH & I am surprised they did reverse airbrush… crap, we, as women get more mixed messages than we need! Why not just not use her & tell her she is too thin & start putting healthy & fit people on the covers, ones that need no photoshopping & are real people … I know, it does not sell!
I just nearly cried at that "Thin is Ugly". One of the few benefits of America's Next Top Model was being able to really see how "unattractive" models are in real life.
I had a lot of problems with not looking like people in magazines until I learned about the magic of photo shop.
Now if I want to look at civilians in all their natural glory, I look at HNT photos.
If you're boycotting Victoria's Secret, be sure to tell them! Apparently boycotts only really work if the company knows about it and knows why. (I've been reading The Rough Guide to Shopping with a Conscience. That's my source.)
I am so glad the former editor spoke out about this! This is encouraging.
There is nothing worth looking at or reading in those magazines. We live in a fallen world.
These models do look great but present a unrealistic body shape for most women. They endorse products that are not much more than junk. They should be promoting “you get looking great by genetics if you are lucky, eating healthy and keeping (getting) fit”
its amazing. I have a long held belief that fitness/health mags are as much to blame for the skewed perception of what is healthy – more so then the fashion magazines. People know that models are unhealthily skinny, but if they're in a health magazine then they have to be healthy right? wrong! I'm often picking up these magazines in the newsagents and flipping threw to find that the images on the pages are scary. You can tell that the girls used are SUPER skinny, but made to look healthy and in turn girls really truly believe that SKINNY=HEALTHY. Let alone all the bullshit exercise advice and diets that set you under 1500 calories and promoting the use of supplements to get muscle when 95% of the models used for those shoots are actually taking drugs (as shown in a few documentaries now). But apparently nobody likes reality so nobody would want to read a magazine filled with real fitness women who work hard, lift heavy and eat more food then any magazine would allow them to promote.
Lani, an average (5'5, 120lbs, 30year old) woman has a basal metabolic rate of 1341 calories according to the Harris Benedict equation. If they live a sedentary life their daily energy expenditure is around 1600 calories. A diet of 1200 calories for weight loss would be entirely healthy. Remember that body composition is 80% diet and that exercise is totally unnecessary to lose weight unless we're talking the last couple pounds of extremely stubborn hip fat…
Sure, if that same average woman is moderately active (exercise 3-5x a week) their daily calorie expenditure is about 2000. Even then, a sub-1500 calorie diet — especially if that was just a low day on a cyclic diet — would be reasonable though on the low side.
You are able to certainly see your abilities inside function you’re writing. The globe wants additional excited internet writers such as you whom will not be reluctant to mention the way they consider. Always stick to your soul.