Now fashion mags make models 'fatter'

[Demi]

The Sunday Telegraph
London, UK
13 April, 2008


Now fashion mags make models 'fatter'

Fashion magazines are manipulating images of skinny models to make them look "fatter" than they really are.

The move is a response to critics who blame images of so-called "size zero" models for the rise in eating disorders in young girls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2008/04/13/efmags113.jpg
Before and after: Shots of Cameron Diaz show the extent of manipulation
Face: Cheeks appear filled out
Bust: Levelled
Thighs: Wider in the picture on the right
Hip: The bony definition has been smoothed away
Stomach: A fuller, more natural look
Arms: A bit more bulk in the arms and shoulders

The fashion industry has long been accused of making models and actresses look thinner and is now using the same techniques in reverse to deflect criticism.

Belinda Coleman, of the retouching agency The Shoemakers Elves, said there was a trend towards presenting less "extreme" images of thinness and of enhancing figures. "Where models are looking particularly gaunt, magazines are saying, 'We can't have that - fill out their chests,'?" she said.

"It is now deemed just as negative to be too thin as too fat. Every~one is scared of being highlighted as the magazine or label that promotes very thin girls, so they are being a lot more careful about the images they present."

Another agency, the iWanex Studio, boasts a portfolio of "before and after" images of celebrities that it has retouched for magazines. In one of the "after" photographs, the thighs of Cameron Diaz, the actress, have been visibly widened, her arms filled out and her stomach made smoother and rounder, with her prominent hip bones from the "before" photograph erased.

Nicky Eaton, the head of press and PR at Condé Nast, which publishes Vogue, GQ, and Glamour, also confirmed that images of models were enhanced to make them appear fuller-figured.

"There have been cases where models are booked way ahead of a shoot and then they turn up two months later looking less healthy and perhaps a bit underweight. We wouldn't be happy showing them that way, so it is then that we would need that person to look a little bit fuller."

But Susan Ringwood, the chief executive of the eating disorder charity Beat, condemned the practice. "Altering models' bodies to appear fuller-figured proves that the industry acknowledges there is a serious issue with projecting images of very thin models, but [it is] missing the point," she said. "They should be using naturally healthy models in the first instance, instead of having to make them look that way."

In 2003, Kate Winslet, who has defended fuller-figured women, appeared on the cover of GQ in a picture that had been altered without her knowledge to make her appear much slimmer.

The following year, Keira Knightley was shocked after appearing with an enhanced bust on posters for the film King Arthur. Last year, however, she dismissed reports that her image in adverts for Chanel's Coco Mademoiselle perfume had been enhanced, despite speculation that she was made to look curvier.

This month, the Periodical Publishers Association (PPA), which represents the magazine industry, appealed for the introduction of a voluntary code regulating the use of digital manipulation and is to hold discussions on the issue with magazine editors.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=/fashion/2008/04/13/efmags113.xml

[Demi]

The Sunday Telegraph
London, UK
13 April, 2008


Airbrushing fears under the carpet

By Kate Finnigan, Style Editor, Stella

The fashion industry has been fiddling with women's bodies for years: retouching their images to give them slimmer thighs, flatter stomachs, rounder breasts, smoother skin. If a celebrity or a model can be digitally enhanced to look "more" perfect, thereby making a product more aspirational and further lining the pockets of global brands, the industry will employ all the technology at its fingertips to do so.

Having served my time on glossy magazines, I can tell you that the sight of the art team standing around original photography, like surgeons around the operating table, highlighting the bumps and curves of womanhood for removal or enhancement at a later date, is as common as the editor heading out for a blow dry.

Every glossy magazine has its archive of re?touching stories - some more sensational than others. (Most fondly, I remember the legend of the Jennifer Aniston cover-shot where her body just "wasn't working" so her head ended up transposed on to the body of a well-formed work-experience girl.) So it doesn't surprise me that this digital trickery has now extended to "fattenising" thin models.

Hey, they've got to keep up with the trends, people, and ultra-skinny's just not cool at the moment. Skeletally thin is not in but luckily the solution is just a mouse-click away: cover up a rib cage here, smooth over a hollow eye-socket there and no one outside the industry is any the wiser.

One could argue that at least it is a move in the right direction - adding on the flesh now rather than taking it away - so one might interpret this latest trend as a good thing for women. The fashion industry seems finally to have got the message that presenting an underweight female figure as something to aspire to is no longer an acceptable marketing tool.

But actually it's just sheer self-interest. Retouching skinny girls doesn't help anyone except advertisers, and least of all the models in question.

Why are these poor women still working? Fashion editors, creative directors, designers, bookers and agencies should not be employing women who look so ill that their true images might be deemed unattractive, worrying or even upsetting.

If a model turns up for work looking less than healthy or not fit for the job, she should be pointed in the direction of someone who can help rather than in the direction of the nearest camera. I fear this latest trend is simply a case of airbrushing a serious problem under the carpet.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/main.jhtml?xml=/fashion/2008/04/13/efmags213.xml

[LessLiz]

I'm no where close to being as good as a pro, but what makes this article amusing is not the alterations to add weight but the fact that people expect this in their own photos.

It is easy to Photoshop 10 to 20 pounds on or off someone, and even easier to remove 10 to 20 years. I've shot some weddings, and trust me that people want you to show "idealized reality." It's not something new, either -- professional photographers have done this for years. It's just easier now with digital photography and digital tools.

I've wondered why Heidi Diaz wasn't smart enough to get a pro to photoshop her into a thin woman instead of being a Russian bride.

[Nancy LC]

Fatter? I'd call that "slightly less skeletal" rather than fatter.

[1000times]

One could argue that at least it is a move in the right direction - adding on the flesh now rather than taking it away - so one might interpret this latest trend as a good thing for women. The fashion industry seems finally to have got the message that presenting an underweight female figure as something to aspire to is no longer an acceptable marketing tool.

But actually it's just sheer self-interest. Retouching skinny girls doesn't help anyone except advertisers, and least of all the models in question.
What the above reminds me of:

Brian: There's no pleasing some people.
Ex-Leper: That's just what Jesus said, sir.

[Marillia]

It may not be the ideal solution, but I think it's a start. If the less-skeletal look that is currently achieved by airbrushing becomes more popular, then with luck life will soon imitate art.

Either way, teens won't have as many rail-thin models shoved in their faces to give them the impression that they'd be that glamorous if they were walking skeletons, too.

[Donna I.]

I agree, its not fatter, its just making the skinny girl look healthier rather than ill.

[Nancy LC]

It may not be the ideal solution, but I think it's a start. If the less-skeletal look that is currently achieved by airbrushing becomes more popular, then with luck life will soon imitate art.

Either way, teens won't have as many rail-thin models shoved in their faces to give them the impression that they'd be that glamorous if they were walking skeletons, too.
See, I'd say it really isn't a step towards anything. Even the models having their bones air-brushed away with sleek, smooth, unlumpy, uncellulited flesh aren't representative of women (or girls). Look at Cameron Diaz, she must be in her late 30's or early 40's by now if my guess is right. What does she have to do to maintain that level of thinness? What sort of drugs or odd behaviors?

They just photoshop all the human out of these people. Why don't they just photograph mannikins, then at least no one will make the mistake of believing they're looking at something authentic.

[M Levac]

Fashion magazines touch up pictures to make them look a certain way. I know of another kind of magazine that does the same thing: Cartoons. In other words, the altered picture is an artificial representation of the person being represented. It's synthetic. Not real.

[tie_guy]

There was a PBS documentary on this a while ago. It was about how they touch up pictures in fashion magazines. The photos looked ok after they were done but if you watch the process it almost makes you want to throw up -- like when they were stretching the woman's legs to an insane length. Then they were explaining why people might find the touched up photos more attractive. It all had to do with changes that happen when people get aroused sexually -- or it had to do with what happens when people become adults (woman have longer legs than girls thus a woman with freakishly long legs looks more womanly I guess.) I found the entire show really rather disgusting and surprising. Anyway, don't expect photos in fashion magazines to show anything close to reality. It is also a well known fact that woman in men's magazines are airbrushed to look a little heavier (that is to say they have breasts and figures although that doesn't mean their dimensions are realistic) than women for women's magazine. I guess the editors know what men like and what unrealistic models they like to show to woman. I always thought that it was funny that the height of attractiveness in a woman's magazine is to look like a boy. I also think it is funny that there are more naked women in women's magazines than there are in men's magazines.

[pennink]

I've been telling you guys we've doing this lately. No collarbones sticking out, or icky shoulders or elbows allowed now.

and EVERYTHING is retouched, for colour, for composition... everything. It's really not a big deal unless you're trying to say that this person lost weight and altering photos to misrepresent. Heck, we even Photoshop babies.

[eryalen]

Fashion has always been an illusion. Have you seen cover girls without their makeup and support foundations.

[pennink]

Fashion has always been an illusion. Have you seen cover girls without their makeup and support foundations.

yep, pretty much every week. A LOT of the girls are as beautiful without the makeup, too, and none of them ever need 'support foundations', btw.

[LStump]

Apparently, photoshopping helps sell whatever it is they are selling, or else they wouldn't be doing it anymore.

[M Levac]

I've been telling you guys we've doing this lately. No collarbones sticking out, or icky shoulders or elbows allowed now.

and EVERYTHING is retouched, for colour, for composition... everything. It's really not a big deal unless you're trying to say that this person lost weight and altering photos to misrepresent. Heck, we even Photoshop babies.

A photograph, by its very nature, is a misrepresentation of reality. Any alteration after that just makes the picture less and less realistic. It's not a big deal. But it's not reality either.

[pennink]

by that train of thought, then neither is seeing someone clothed, or with makeup or hair dye.

:lol:

[Bexicon]

Fatter, my ass... It's amusing someone made an article all about a fictitious trend to retouch too-skinny models, complete with quotes from the industry about how everyone thinks it's so great. It's a load of hooey.

Her thighs were made bigger not because she looked skinny but because she looked out of proportion; the thinness of her legs made her waist look wide. Her boobs are bigger and they reshaped her upper body rather than adding weight to it. It's easier to see on the retoucher's website where you can mouse-over between before and after.

The Diaz photo is from the portfolio at http://www.iwanexstudio.com/ which was mentioned in the article. Have a look at the rest of the pictures in the portfolio. There are several blatant examples of already slim models having several pounds shaved off and tummies flattened, not to mention making backs more arched, legs lengthened, eyes bluer, moustaches fainter, and the usual removal of wrinkles, shadows, veins, zits, pores and stray hairs.

Retouching is all about creating an absolutely unrealistic image and nothing has changed.

[ValerieL]

and EVERYTHING is retouched, for colour, for composition... everything. It's really not a big deal unless you're trying to say that this person lost weight and altering photos to misrepresent. Heck, we even Photoshop babies.


Isn't there a magazine that doesn't airbrush? I thought I had read recently about one that didn't do it in their photo shoots? A Canadian one, possibly? Redbook? I know the ads would still be all Photoshopped, but the features weren't I thought. Darn, I can't remember the name of the magazine, but I thought I read that one of them didn't Photoshop.

[Nancy LC]

What'd they do before computers were around? How did they get those beauties for the old Vogue covers in the 1940's?

[pennink]

camera lens and yes, retouching on the film by the printers. I used to do that for my dad. When the negative was shot, they could manipulate the film in the old days. You could even cut and assemble new images out of several.

No, Valerie, I highly doubt it. EVERY image we use is retouched in some way. Curves (light balance) adjusted, a hair or two moved, a shadow lightened. Really, it's not a big deal. Raw images aren't perfect. If they say they haven't retouched, they mean 'altered beyond recognition'. But the photographers rarely hand anything over without some manipulation, and then we get it and tweak it again.
Just like you'd never want to see the raw text submitted by writers! :lol:

[pennink]

Sorry Bexicon, we actually ARE making them more fleshy.

And yes, it's public opinion urging us to do so.

[Nancy LC]

I doubt they did that in the 1940's. :) Back then they used to paint on photographs but it was so fake it was easy to spot. Camera lenses sure, they probably used some tricks to soften things up.

But then again, they wore a lot of clothes in the 1940's so there wasn't a lot of skin and bone and fat to worry about.

[LessLiz]

You'd be amazed at what photographers used to do. White and black points were set, particular areas of photos had increased exposure, other areas had decreased exposures. Vogue covers are an example of doing that to make someone look great. In Richard Avedon's work, some of the manipulation of exposure and other techniques were done to make a photo more poignant, or to emphasize negative features such as wrinkles showing the wear of life on faces and bodies, or to do exactly the Vogue cover effect.

I have 3 programs just to manipulate photos. I spend as much time working on the images as I do taking them. But my goal isn't to represent reality, it is to create something that doesn't exist anywhere except inside my head.

[ValerieL]

Really, it's not a big deal. Raw images aren't perfect. If they say they haven't retouched, they mean 'altered beyond recognition'. But the photographers rarely hand anything over without some manipulation, and then we get it and tweak it again.

I know you are in the industry, but I *do* think it's a big deal.

There is a huge difference between altering colour & light balance and the type of photoshopping that is done to alter women's bodies in fashion magazines.

Apparently there is a movement in Europe to show which images are essentially Photoshop-free http://wiki.ucalgary.ca/page/Image:Photoshopvrij.jpg .

I would go out of my way to support a magazine that had that logo on their cover and on their features. I'd go out of my way to support products that used that logo on their ads.

[LessLiz]

Some people in the industry think its a big deal, too, but the industry they are in is acting, not modeling or fashion. Jamie Lee Curtis is rather famous for having photos taken showing breasts naturally drooping with age, back fat and loose skin. Sarah Jessica Parker has fairly recently talked about wrinkles, the unreality of what people see, and her refusal to do plastic surgery. Curtis did it because she was aware that people no longer had a realistic expectation of how bodies change with age, and felt that the depiction of her body was part of the problem because for so many years she was considered to have the perfect body. Parker had similar reasons. I'm sure there are others, some of whom just live life without surgery and enhancement.

[pennink]

I know you are in the industry, but I *do* think it's a big deal.

There is a huge difference between altering colour & light balance and the type of photoshopping that is done to alter women's bodies in fashion magazines.

Apparently there is a movement in Europe to show which images are essentially Photoshop-free http://wiki.ucalgary.ca/page/Image:Photoshopvrij.jpg .

I would go out of my way to support a magazine that had that logo on their cover and on their features. I'd go out of my way to support products that used that logo on their ads.


never going to happen. Raw photography files are not publishable.
You might get them not tweaking out the essentials, but you must fix the files to print them.

[LessLiz]

The photos themselves, before retouching, are not absolute representations of reality, either. You can alter the crap out of reality by lighting, with filters, and with lens choice. The camera itself is not capable of recording what your eyes see -- neither film nor digital sensors have as wide a dynamic range for perceiving light as the human eye.

Seriously, photography is an art at least in part because one cannot capture reality.

[pennink]

The photos themselves, before retouching, are not absolute representations of reality, either. You can alter the crap out of reality by lighting, with filters, and with lens choice. The camera itself is not capable of recording what your eyes see -- neither film nor digital sensors have as wide a dynamic range for perceiving light as the human eye.

Seriously, photography is an art at least in part because one cannot capture reality.

there ya go...

[ValerieL]

Except that it is happening in the Dutch magazines, so - never say never.

[RobinB]

Sounds like the makings of a new tv reality show.

[LessLiz]

I don't believe it is happening for a second, no matter what they claim. If I take a photograph of a person, every tiny wrinkle is magnified due to the limitations of photography unless it's a "high key" photo -- one that is taken to be very light and wash out fine details. I've never seen a raw photo published except as art, and the image was manipulated in the taking.

ETA: One other place -- photojournalism uses raw photos.

[pennink]

even if the mag says they are, they aren't.

they might not be making changes to bodies, etc, but the must process the files before publishing.

AND, don't forget the work of the makeup artist at the shoot. You would be amazed what can be changed then.

[ValerieL]

Please, let's discuss this reasonably. I'm not talking about lighting changes, makeup, good angles and soft focus filters.

I'm talking about shaving inches off hips, airbrushing out wrinkles, enlarging busts - creating images of women (and men) that are impossible to live up to for the average person. If you think this is okay and right, then fine, but in my opinion, it's dishonest, unfair and wrong. Period.

Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right.

[pennink]

I'm not talking right and wrong. I'm simply talking what "is".

There is nothing, anywhere in the media, with the exception of say some poorly shot and edited documentaries maybe (or local cable shows) that isn't manipulated.
In fact, every story you hear on the news that reports studies, new ideas, etc, has been circulated by PR people.

Very very few things in the media is true. Everyone is trying to sell us something.

When I first started in journalism I was shocked and saddened. I sit listening to news programs, even, and say, "hey, I just got that pitch." I'm jaded and understand it's the nature of the beast. It's all about ad dollars.

[Bexicon]

Sorry Bexicon, we actually ARE making them more fleshy.Who exactly are you referring to when you say "we"? And are you making them more fleshy more often than you are making them less fleshy? I think there is a lot to be gained from telling the public you are doing that; less so from actually doing it.

I've included the first 3 body shots in the portfolio from which the Diaz photo came -- the retoucher specifically says "for the past years I have specialized primarily in beauty, cosmetic and fashion retouching as well as celebrity retouching for advertisements and/or magazine covers." You see a weight-gain trend happening here?

And yes, it's public opinion urging us to do so.Urging you to make the right noises, which you are doing. Please show me more concrete evidence that you're doing it. I'd love to believe you.

[LessLiz]

Val, I think wrinkles should be "airbrushed" back to the point that the photo looks like the person does. Beyond that, I pretty much agree with you.

Bexicon -- the site you linked shows photos where collar bones have been softened right along with photos where bodies have been reshaped. Hips are made wider on some, but waists are made narrower on others. Some of the arms have been widened and rounded on some, while legs have been shrunk on others.

Looks to me like they are aiming for one uniform size and shape, somewhat larger than they aimed for a few years ago, but still a fantasy.

ETA: I remember seeing a show some 15 years ago hosted by Isabella Rossellini about fashion and haute couture. She seemed asonished that anyone thought the entire industry was about anything other than fantasy. She loved it *because* it was fantasy.

[Bexicon]

Looks to me like they are aiming for one uniform size and shape, somewhat larger than they aimed for a few years ago, but still a fantasy.I disagree it's any larger than before, but yes, a fantasy. Waists shrink, boobs and hips get bigger. It's nothing to do with a trend for models to look more 'natural' (which was the point of the article)... completely the opposite.

ETA: I remember seeing a show some 15 years ago hosted by Isabella Rossellini about fashion and haute couture. She seemed asonished that anyone thought the entire industry was about anything other than fantasy. She loved it *because* it was fantasy.I have absolutely no problem with it all being fantasy. If somone buys those representations as ideals, I really don't know why. If they strive to achieve those ideals, that's their challenge/problem.

Some people manage to get through life without basing their self-worth on what people look like in fashion magazines or on television. Focusing on what the people in magazines look like, as some means of addressing the problem, seems to me to be missing the point.

People selling unreality shouldn't pretend they aren't. S'all I'm saying.

[pennink]

Who exactly are you referring to when you say "we"? And are you making them more fleshy more often than you are making them less fleshy? I think there is a lot to be gained from telling the public you are doing that; less so from actually doing it.

I've included the first 3 body shots in the portfolio from which the Diaz photo came -- the retoucher specifically says "for the past years I have specialized primarily in beauty, cosmetic and fashion retouching as well as celebrity retouching for advertisements and/or magazine covers." You see a weight-gain trend happening here?

Urging you to make the right noises, which you are doing. Please show me more concrete evidence that you're doing it. I'd love to believe you.

yes, we are NOT EVER thinning models down.

I honestly don't care if you don't take my word for it, and I highly doubt I'm going to go to the extent of pulling in my pdfs and doing before and afters for you. Yes, my art director would be right on that. :lol:

it's what's happening. I have posted this for many many months.

[pennink]

Who exactly are you referring to when you say "we"? .

my magazine.

[KvonM]

If somone buys those representations as ideals, I really don't know why. If they strive to achieve those ideals, that's their challenge/problem.

Some people manage to get through life without basing their self-worth on what people look like in fashion magazines or on television. Focusing on what the people in magazines look like, as some means of addressing the problem, seems to me to be missing the point.

People selling unreality shouldn't pretend they aren't. S'all I'm saying.
but the problem is, the magazines that run those pictures don't SAY "by the way, this is a photo of beyonce knowles AFTER we retouched the image to get rid of the fat pockets overhanging her waistband, AFTER narrowing her ribcage, and AFTER we've thinned her legs." the magazines print those pictures as if that's how the models actually looked as they stepped in front of the camera.

body dysmorphia is a widespread problem, and is a direct result of using fashion magazines as the benchmark for ideal beauty. if the people in the photos can't even achieve the ideal, then what chance to us poor common schmucks have?

you're right... SOME people can see fashion magazines and not base their self-image off it. but only some. the magazines selling that unreality expect you to continue to purchase the magazine in the hopes that you might someday, somehow, some way, achieve the very unreality they're selling.

[stashyc]

I see Bexicon's attached photos as simply enhanced- the colours are popped up, and the skin tone is evened.
I think what this discussion fails to address is the fact that there are actually alot of beautiful women who act or model who don't or never have had weight issues. I was a professional photographer for years, and I photographed many, many women with no weight issues who were simply great looking. I photoshopped them. I made the eyes bluer, the belt buckle sparklier, whatever it took to make the photo as artistically great as it could be.
I think this discussion has become heated because we start to believe that all thin women must be doing something wrong to be thin, like drugs or whatever some previous poster said about Cameron Diaz. I know plenty of natuarally thin women who would be just as offended by our fat talk as we are by the fact that they are skinny in the first place.
The fact that we are overweight is obviously why we are all here. I feel that, on behalf of the naturally thin ladies I know, that we just need to not attack them. What photographers do is the industry norm. I disagree with them actually shaving off pounds and all that, but aren't we actually here to lose weight?
Can't people like Kate Winslet and so many others continue to do the advocacy for a healthy frame? I think its working, and I hope that more people are driven to try and be thin and healthy than are driven to go to the McDonald's drive through and continue the American legacy of obesity.


I'm quite sure that I haven't said what I want to say right, but I just want people to care about not getting so overweight. I feel like Americans in particular have a bigger problem with teenage obesity than teenage anorexia.

[cleochatra]

Just like you'd never want to see the raw text submitted by writers!

Bite yer fricken' tongue!

[cleochatra]

Penn is all about making people look healthier rather than anorexic. Even her horses were made to look fatter. Still, such supple equine thighs...

[pennink]

Penn is all about making people look healthier rather than anorexic. Even her horses were made to look fatter. Still, such supple equine thighs...

you don't even WANT to know what we do to horses... or for that matter, food!

[Daisymaiz]

you don't even WANT to know what we do to horses... or for that matter, food!
Like painting raw steaks?!?! http://bestsmileys.com/panic/3.gif

[cleochatra]

I think Penn is just a pigment of my imagination.

[Daisymaiz]

I think Penn is just a pigment of my imagination.
Do you make her look fabulous?

[LessLiz]

There's a reason that no hamburger you've ever purchased looks like a hamburger in a photograph.

[pennink]

Hey Cleo, I've even photoshopped Oopsies... :lol:

[cleochatra]

These oopsies were airbrushed...

[LessLiz]

My husband offered to brush my oopsies.

[cleochatra]

I brushed my oopsies.

They went from UU to a very supple uu

[SylvieK]

I wish there was a way to airbrush or photoshop models to make them look SMARTER.

I enjoy fashion mags, especially Vogue, but I've noticed a trend for several years where models look dumb, vapid, even moronic sometimes. It seems to be a calculated portrayal, as far as I can tell, not just women looking vacant or sultry. I find it very disturbing.

[SylvieK]

And about the tricks they used in the 40s, they often resorted to vaseline on the camera lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKrXqElp1fw&feature=related