Model Slams Magazine for Photoshopping Her Body

[Braineack]

apparently actresses put nudity riders in their contracts too -- rediculous.

 

[limr]

Once bought stay bought

apparently actresses put nudity riders in their contracts too -- rediculous.

Um...what??

 

[Braineack]

hyperbole.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

And yet another wrinkle(OK, a horrid pun):

Kate Winslet's Modeling Contract with L'Oréal Has a 'No Photoshop' Clause

Even if there is no Photoshop used, they will just change her with make up, lighting, and even colored filters to make her look more "perfect"

and to add a little fuel to the fire: School Portrait Company Pulls Its Retouching Service After Mom Complains

Bored house wife?

 

[The_Traveler]

apparently actresses put nudity riders in their contracts too -- rediculous.

hyperbole.

I don't understand what you are saying.
A movie is a big complex undertaking and if, in process, the director wants to add some spicy bits to up the ante , then the issue is covered in the contract and the actor isn't forced to do what he/she doesn't want to do.

 

[Braineack]

im just being stupid.

 

[PixelRabbit]

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

Out of all of the replies in this thread the ones that scream the loudest are the ones that were never posted. Lenny gave a great female perspective on this issue and it was literally ignored other than silent likes/agrees and the conversation continued around it like it wasn't even posted.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Not wanting to draw hard line fringe feminists on me but how is changing ones appearance on photoshop totally different from using bullet proof layers of makeup or incorporating chicken fillets into articles of clothing.

 

[Braineack]

the point she was trying to make is that the magazines reinforce this behavior.

hell, girls still think it's a good idea to make the duck face in photos...

 

[limr]

Not wanting to draw hard line fringe feminists on me but how is changing ones appearance on photoshop totally different from using bullet proof layers of makeup or incorporating chicken fillets into articles of clothing.

I'm not sure about the chicken fillet reference (??) (or that there are any hard line fringe feminists around here) but what it comes down to is control. Who gets to decide? And what are the effects of that decision? I'm in charge of my use of makeup, or the lack thereof. In addition, if I decide to slather it on and put myself in a magazine, anyone who wants to imitate me can do it quite easily because I'm not portraying a wildly inaccurate or impossible image of myself.

If I'm a model and try to have a say in how my pictures are edited, would I really have a chance to influence the final image? Or would I be told that I'm just the model and don't have a right to say anything and if I don't like it, I can just shove off? And what are the consequences if I don't say anything and let the editors do whatever they want? Then millions of girls see an image of me (that is determined my someone other than me) that is often a physical impossibility. And many times, this is often AFTER I've already eaten nothing for days to get into the size 0 clothing for the photo shoot. Even then, I need to be "perfected" with Photoshop. The girls that see the magazine or ad strive to achieve the same look, even though they never will, and end up with eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorders (which affects boys as well, so it's not just an issue with female models) or thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery, all for an impossible standard of beauty that is pushed by the fashion magazines. And it's pushed by both men and women in the industry. There's a lot of Kool-Aid being drunk.

Former Vogue editor: The truth about size zero
"I was horrified to hear what the industry was covering up and I felt complicit. We were all complicit. But in my experience it is practically impossible to get a photographer or a fashion editor – male or female – to acknowledge the repercussions of using very thin girls. They don't want to. For them, it's all about the drama of the photograph. They convince themselves that the girls are just genetically blessed, or have achieved it through energetic bouts of yoga and eating goji berries.

I was at the baggage carousel with a fashion editor collecting our luggage after a trip and I noticed a woman standing nearby. She was the most painfully thin person I had ever seen, and my heart went out to her. I pointed her out to the editor who scrutinised the poor woman and said: "I know it sounds terrible, but I think she looks really great." The industry is rife with this level of body dysmorphia from mature women."

 

[Braineack]

the first thing i think of when we talk about the fashion industry is ethics and morals.

 

[JacaRanda]

Some tunes and tudes will change once it becomes personal: daughters, wives, sisters, aunts, cousins, bff's, human beings.
Apathy, ignorance, greed - a price to pay.

 

[The_Traveler]

Not wanting to draw hard line fringe feminists on me but how is changing ones appearance on photoshop totally different from using bullet proof layers of makeup or incorporating chicken fillets into articles of clothing.

First, you are saying that people who don't agree with you must be 'hardline fringe feminists' and I disagree with at least the half of your comment that I understand. Makeup and lighting can change the appearance of the surface, and can be achieved by the model themselves, while the PS editing that these women - and I - disagree about is post hoc, changes the model's basic shape, thinning here, bulging there to produce shapes that. tbh, occur rarely in Nature.

Is this wrong - and deceitful and dangerous? I think so.
I guess that makes me a hardline fringe feminist.

Do any of these women look normal and healthy to you?
To me they look bizarrely skinny and unhealthy and certainly not what I'd wanted my children to aim for.
The woman in the center 5'10, 110 lbs.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Not wanting to draw hard line fringe feminists on me but how is changing ones appearance on photoshop totally different from using bullet proof layers of makeup or incorporating chicken fillets into articles of clothing.

I'm not sure about the chicken fillet reference (??) (or that there are any hard line fringe feminists around here) but what it comes down to is control. Who gets to decide? And what are the effects of that decision? I'm in charge of my use of makeup, or the lack thereof. In addition, if I decide to slather it on and put myself in a magazine, anyone who wants to imitate me can do it quite easily because I'm not portraying a wildly inaccurate or impossible image of myself.

If I'm a model and try to have a say in how my pictures are edited, would I really have a chance to influence the final image? Or would I be told that I'm just the model and don't have a right to say anything and if I don't like it, I can just shove off? And what are the consequences if I don't say anything and let the editors do whatever they want? Then millions of girls see an image of me (that is determined my someone other than me) that is often a physical impossibility. And many times, this is often AFTER I've already eaten nothing for days to get into the size 0 clothing for the photo shoot. Even then, I need to be "perfected" with Photoshop. The girls that see the magazine or ad strive to achieve the same look, even though they never will, and end up with eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorders (which affects boys as well, so it's not just an issue with female models) or thousands of dollars worth of plastic surgery, all for an impossible standard of beauty that is pushed by the fashion magazines. And it's pushed by both men and women in the industry. There's a lot of Kool-Aid being drunk.

Former Vogue editor: The truth about size zero
"I was horrified to hear what the industry was covering up and I felt complicit. We were all complicit. But in my experience it is practically impossible to get a photographer or a fashion editor – male or female – to acknowledge the repercussions of using very thin girls. They don't want to. For them, it's all about the drama of the photograph. They convince themselves that the girls are just genetically blessed, or have achieved it through energetic bouts of yoga and eating goji berries.

I was at the baggage carousel with a fashion editor collecting our luggage after a trip and I noticed a woman standing nearby. She was the most painfully thin person I had ever seen, and my heart went out to her. I pointed her out to the editor who scrutinised the poor woman and said: "I know it sounds terrible, but I think she looks really great." The industry is rife with this level of body dysmorphia from mature women."

You made the point that I was going to make in response to your post "in my experience it is practically impossible to get a photographer or a fashion editor – male or female – to acknowledge the repercussions of using very thin girls"

The if only "women ruled the world" statement is so often put out there as if things would be better, not by you by the way, but its money that matters regardless and if people continue to buy these publications then no change will happen.

FYI chicken fillets are the things that women put in there bras to give themselves a bigger bust, maybe there called something else in the US. When daughters see there mothers sisters whoever using such things they accept that as something that has to be done my point was its learned behaviour and yes the same applies to men/boys

The fringe feminist thing was only headline grabber.

 

[Derrel]

Limr's post above raises the basic question: do models have a say in how the images made of them are processed/edited/Photoshopped? The short answer is no, not at all, in any way. They show up, go to makeup and wardrobe, are photographed, then go home, and some days later, payment is received. Models don't have a say in how their images are processed. In almost every single one of these Photoshop shaming types of incidents, the person who was photographed then excessively 'shopped was a well-known and powerful or influential person: Oprah was an early one, when TV Guide slapped her head on the body of a thinner, more fit-looking woman. Faith Hill, Madonna, Kate Winslett, all have been victims of bad, excessive photoshopping.

I think the headline on the original Zendaya piece was clickbait-worthy: Zendaya is not "a model", really...she's something else, really. She's in that weird celebrity/entertainer category; she has her own "voice", which models lack. Of course, PetaPixel **is** a clickbait site! So...

Anyway...the fashion and women's magazine industries do a lot of Photoshopping of images. The Most WTF Celebrity Photoshop Fails Of All Time

I think the French government is the one we'll maybe want to consider following. France has some serious guidelines on models, thinness, and image processing that distorts reality excessively.