Model Slams Magazine for Photoshopping Her Body

[EIngerson]

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.

 

[480sparky]

The poor thing should slam PetaPixel for calling her a signer.

Whatever a signer is.

 

[limr]

I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.

What about it are you sick of?

You might be sorry you asked

Leaving aside the issues of model contract or who has the right to retouch (because I'm kind of sick of this NOT being in the contract), I'll tell you what I'm sick of about all the underlying bull**** around this kind of story.

I'm sick of how much power photo editors have over the image of beauty being portrayed, which essentially gives them power over how so many young girls feel about themselves. Girls are developing eating disorders at younger and younger ages and spend their whole lives pinning their self-esteem to how thin they are and if they look like the pictures in the magazines.

I'm sick that women who already fit that standard still get photoshopped to be even thinner and even less realistic.

I'm sick of the idea that you can "never be skinny enough."

I'm sick of campaigns to get women to embrace our shapes and spend all this emotional energy on finding ways to feel beautiful, because ultimately, under all of that is STILL the message that feeling good about our appearances is the only way to have self-esteem or to value ourselves.

And I'm sick of how most of these campaigns come from companies like Dove or Special-K that put out commercials and articles and short internet "documentaries" and projects that tell us to forget about numbers or models, and just feel beautiful, but (*whisper*) oh yeah, you can't actually do that unless you have nice soft skin with Dove or unless you lose weight by eating nothing but crappy Special K foods for 2 meals a day because otherwise, how will you feel pretty?

I'm sick of how thin, beautiful women can spread the message about "embracing your curves" when they don't, in fact, have any, and they are lauded for spreading such an "important message," but when plus-sized women say the same thing, they get dismissed or criticized for "just wanting to stay fat." So women don't really have much say in the matter unless they already fit the standard.

I'm sick of models who try to defend the idea that photoshopping is going too far and who try to have some control over their image, but who are being met with dismissive remarks about how they have no right to complain and have no say in how they are portrayed. Once again, women are not being allowed to have a voice about their own bodies.

I'm sick of never hearing about this problem with male models. I even tried to google examples of it, and there are hardly any. There's the typical skin smoothing, because no one is allowed to get old and have wrinkles, of course, but there aren't any examples of editors changing the entire shape of the male model's body. There are plenty of examples, however, when the woman's entire body shape is altered.

And finally (oh there's more, but I'll stop here), I'm sick of knowing that somewhere, there is a theoretical man who would theoretically read this and roll his eyes, thinking I have no idea what I'm talking about, that I'm just whining and bitching, and that I'm just another unreasonable woman who's probably on the rag, because he feels that, as a man, he still knows better about what it's like to be a woman, and if I get upset, it's just because women are just sooooo emotional and don't want to face "the truth."

And I'm sick of not being able to punch that theoretical man in the throat.

And all of this might be annoying to me, but to others, it's downright dangerous when young girls and women buy into the image being portrayed and end up literally sick, and not just emotionally sick of the whole thing. Because sometimes the editor has to photoshop some flesh back ON the model:

"Hardy, the editor at Cosmo, explains that she frequently re-touched models who were "frighteningly thin." Others have reported similar practices. Jane Druker, the editor of Healthy magazine -- which is sold in health food stores -- admitted retouching a cover girl who pitched up at a shoot looking "really thin and unwell." 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.""
You'll Be Shocked at What These Editors Are Editing Out of Their Photos

 

[rexbobcat]

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.

It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic. She's not relegated to keeping quiet about shitty Photoshopping just because said Photoshopping was legal.

I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your refutation because it doesn't represent anything I was arguing against. I already said the magazine was well within their rights. But can and should are important. The court of public opinion is fickle.

I mean, it's not like the magazine had to pull the issue.

 

[EIngerson]

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.

It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.

"Well that's business." Yeah, it is.

But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.

Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing.

On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.

 

[rexbobcat]

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.

It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.

"Well that's business." Yeah, it is.

But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.

Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing.

On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.

You assume that the complaints were meant to be anything more than a bad review. The shaming worked well enough for the magazine to pull the issue. And the model still got paid. So it's kind of a win-win as opposed to the possibility of not being paid at all because of a stringent contract. Besides, we don't even know the contract negotiations here. I imagine they were handled by Zendaya's management rather than being personally scrutinized by Zendaya herself. At the celebrity level of publicity, I don't know how involved or knowledgeable they are behind the scenes since they're a part of this huge, confusing, trademarked machine already.

The fact of the images being out there is already irrelevant since they've already been debunked. Another win.

Sometimes work (and life) isn't as simple as "if you don't like it change it or don't do it." It's often about risk management, and you don't always get to have your whole cake and eat it too. Sometimes you've got to settle for a slice.

 

[EIngerson]

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.

It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.

"Well that's business." Yeah, it is.

But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.

Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing.

On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.

You assume that the complaints were meant to be anything more than a bad review. The shaming worked well enough for the magazine to pull the issue. And the model still got paid. So it's kind of a win-win as opposed to the possibility of not being paid at all because of a stringent contract.

Sometimes work (and life) isn't as simple as "if you don't like it change it or don't do it."

LOL, I didn't assume anything. I'm completely objective on the topic. Like I said, Good on her for going so public with it. If I ran the magazine I would absolutely NOT pull it. I have my own rational behind that but I don't want to type that much. lol.

I tend to agree with many of you "false beauty" aspect of it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look like a magazine model. Hell, I honestly find it completely unattractive. Complaining after the damage is done is not what's going to fix it though. Education and awareness of the industry is what's going to hold weight. There are some very popular professional models that are on the right track. Posting videos and giving seminars on the truths of the industry. It's admirable of them and I applaud it. Unfortunately it doesn't have the traction it needs. I have 2 boys, so I don't have a personal drive to get behind the cause. But I've worked with enough models to understand the unreasonable lengths girls will go to to achieve perceived beauty.

Tragic really, but I don't think it'll change.

 

[rexbobcat]

Yes, but these concepts have to be packaged in some way for the lay men and women outside of the creative and publishing industries/hobbies.

Sometimes the takeaway is that the industry isn't going to make a sweeping change any time soon, so those who buy these magazines for the people featured need to be aware that stuff like this happens.

I think it empowers the consumer, which is sometimes all that can be done.

 

[EIngerson]

Yes, but these concepts have to be packaged in some way for the lay men and women outside of the creative and publishing industries/hobbies.

Sometimes the takeaway is that the industry isn't going to make a sweeping change any time soon, so those who guy these magazines for the people featured need to be aware that stuff like this happens. I think it empowers the consumer, which is sometimes all that can be done.

Absolutely agree. But…..Anything short of a model revolt and public boycott will leave things status quo.

 

[Braineack]

you guys are all just racist.

 

[Designer]

.. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.

Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning. What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?

 

[SquarePeg]

.. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.

Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning. What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?

Are you saying that the magazine used a horribly edited photo that paints their publication as amateurish and misogynistic so that the model could protest and they would both get publicity out of it? While I usually love a good conspiracy theory, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Braineack]

.. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.

Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning. What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?

have you ever looked at any magazine ever?

Everyone should assume every picture, in any grocery store magazine, is extremely manipulated.

If you seriously want this to stop, stop doing photoshoots for subpar magazines. It's that simple.

 

[cgw]

As Errol Morris says, "believing is seeing."

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/staging-manipulation-ethics-photos/?_r=0

 

[Solarflare]

So does that model "Zendaya" still get modeling jobs now ?

What I think is especially interesting is that the model in question is thin as a stick anyway and really wouldnt need any manipulation whatsoever.

Also ironically the manipulated picture made her actually look less attractive, since they made her hips smaller.

At least some of the other examples have been clear increases in commonly perceived beauty, such as removing wrinkles.