From Jezebel.com:

Although Demi Moore has denied that her W cover was dramatically Photoshopped to accidentally remove part of her hip, a photographer who also noticed it is calling bullshit… to the tune of $5,000.

Following controversy about her body proportions on the current W cover, Demi Moore posted the following message on Twitter:

With a link to the following image:

Professional photographer Antony Citrano reacted to this post by saying:

Whether or not her hip was botched, I do not believe for a moment that the image Demi posted yesterday [on Twitter] is the original shot. If she’s aware of that – and I expect she is – it’s irresponsible (and silly) of her to make that assertion.So, I’ll see her move and raise her $5,000: if the shot she posted yesterday is really the unretouched original, I will donate $5,000 to a charity of her choosing.

Eagerly awaiting the continuation of this saga…

Full post on Jezebel: “Photographer Bets $5,000 On Demi Moore W Cover Retouching“

File under: Duh! Should we be surprised?

From today’s Telegraph (UK):

Babies’ eye colour, skin tone – and even the fat creases on their arms – are altered before the images are put on glossy magazine front covers.

Politicians and industry experts described the practice as “shocking” and said it would put further pressure on parents who wanted their babies to be perfect.

Full article here.

As I write this, my cheeks are mildly blushing, as I feel a tinge of embarrassment about this realization. That is, despite the fact that I’ve been acutely aware of all of the optical trickeries that go into photography, film, and TV, I somehow never thought much of shampoo commercials. Until I discovered a “vintage” L’Oreal ad from 1990, starring Monica Bellucci.

But let’s take a step back. First, watch this contemporary commercial for Pantene shampoo:

Standard fare, right? Nothing stands out particularly.

Then watch the aforementioned commercial for L’Oreal shampoo, from 1990:

Notice something different?

The first thought that came to mind, for me, was how messy Monica Bellucci’s hair was. I could see actual strands of hair standing out from her head:

So, thinking about commercials of the mid- and late-2000s, I wonder: how much CGI / digital post-production work goes into the appearance of the models’ hair? Watch again the Pantene commercial above. Doesn’t it look completely fake by comparison? After all, Monica Bellucci’s hair looks thoroughly natural. And yet, we are so conditioned to see idealized, computer-generated hair in contemporary shampoo commercials, that real hair is put to shame. 

Commercials for shampoos are no different than commercials for anti-wrinkle creams. They are thoroughly manipulated and idealized. What’s wrong with natural looking hair? Why do we always have to aspire to an ideal that does not exist in nature?

via Corriere della Sera

(According to Corriere della Sera, the website complex.com mistakenly published an unretouched photo of Kim Kardashian on its site. And consequently corrected the error.)

Kim Kardashian quickly responded on her site:

So what: I have a little cellulite. What curvy girl doesn’t!?

How many people do you think are photoshopped? It happens all the time!

At the same time as this Complex shoot, I was gearing up for my fitness DVD and you should see my thighs now!!! Haha!

This all motivates me to stay in the gym because my goal this year has been to get in better shape and tone up! Hard work pays off!

I’m proud of my body and my curves and this picture coming out is probably helpful for everyone to see that just because I am on the cover of a magazine doesn’t mean I’m perfect.

You can check out more behind-the-scenes pics from the shoot right here. And they’re not retouched!

Ms. Kardashian’s full post is here.

via Jezebel:

Did Vanity Fair whitewash Slumdog Millionaire’s Freida Pinto in the March issue? If only India didn’t have a history of skin bleaching.

In October 2008, Newsweek magazine put an unretouched photo of Sarah Palin (b. 1964) on its cover – which left quite a few people speechless, and the Republican camp outraged, since 99.99999 percent of photos in print media are airbrushed, to remove wrinkles, blemishes and other “imperfections” common to all human beings.

Brad Pitt (b. 1963, thus a year older than Ms. Palin), recently grazed the cover of W magazine – close up, unretouched. I didn’t see any people running for cover. Or claiming this was outrageous. To the contrary, there seems to be something valiant about Mr. Pitt’s “rebelling” against Photoshop.

Could it be that there is a gender double standard at play? When was the last time we saw an unretouched photo of a woman, close-up, on a mainstream magazine cover? I can’t possibly think of any examples…

Why should we be shocked/outraged/or downright embarrassed for a photo of a 44 year old woman with a naturally wrinkled face and not have the same reaction when it comes to a man?

(You ask me, Sarah Palin looks beautiful in that pic, and Brad Pitt looks like he belongs to a different – older – generation compared to her.)

UPDATE: 01/30

The current issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a close-up picture of President Obama (I just love saying that) on its cover. It is unretouched – and thus shows all of his face’s fine lines. I didn’t read/hear about anyone objecting to it. Again, gender double standard at play here?

From scientificblogging.com.

Excerpt:

This kind of sexualization of ‘tween girls – defined as those between the ages of 8 and 12 – in pop culture and advertising is a growing problem fueled by marketers’ efforts to create cradle-to-grave consumers, a University of Iowa journalism professor argues in her new book.

“A lot of very sexual products are being marketed to very young kids,” said Gigi Durham, author of The Lolita Effect. “I’m criticizing the unhealthy and damaging representations of girls’ sexuality, and how the media present girls’ sexuality in a way that’s tied to their profit motives. The body ideals presented in the media are virtually impossible to attain, but girls don’t always realize that, and they’ll buy an awful lot of products to try to achieve those bodies. There’s endless consumerism built around that.”

(Emphasis mine)

Full article here.

The Lolita Effect on Amazon.

From the Sidney Morning Herald:

Welcome to the new face of teen magazines. Indigo, a magazine started by a group of women in Victoria last year and headed by Barwon Heads mother Leanne Koster, emphasises real girls and their achievements, not celebrities and fashion.

The most recent issue included images of everyday girls and their stories, interviews with successful young women, pieces about the environment as well as creative activity ideas.

The philosophy behind the magazine? “When girls flick through the pages of the mag, they can see themselves,” editor Freya Holland says.

The launch of Indigo came in a year when teen mags stopped simply being hot property in schools and became the subject of intense public scrutiny.

The federal Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis, spoke out about the devastating effects of poor body image, linking the problem to the types of media girls and young women consume. Ellis announced a National Media and Industry Code of Conduct on Body Image, which demands labelling of airbrushed images in women’s magazines and the diversification of models’ size and shape.

Full article here.

Messing with ads in subways is becoming an artform, but this “Photoshopping” of ads in Berlin takes things to the next level by creating a Photoshop interface with stickers. This is pitch-perfect adbusting right here.

via Gizmodo.

Check out the rest of the gallery on Flickr.

Whenever I discuss the issues of beauty, self image and the media – in a critical way – people instantly mention the Dove campaign for “Real Beauty,” invariably saying, “Wasn’t that wonderful, for a change?” Yes. And no. Because (a) it was heavily retouched in Photoshop by Pascal Dangin (b) Dove is owned by Unilever, which sells Slim Fast and the #1 skin whitening cream brand in Asia (c) the ultimate purpose of the ad is to sell a product – and smartly so, by differentiating the brand with the illusion that what they care about is real beauty (their sales shot up 700% in the UK with the – albeit retouched – Pro Age campaign showing older women). For more on Dove’s corporate hypocrisy, check out this earlier post: “An Egregious Example of Corporate Hypocrisy: Dove’s “Real Beauty” Campaign.”

Indeed, if you examine it closely, a Chomsky quote would be really appropriate regarding Dove’s “Real Beauty” (Photoshopped) campaign:

One of the ways you control what people think is by creating the illusion that there’s a debate going on, but making sure that that debate stays within very narrow margins.

Now, criticism aside, once every blue moon a campaign comes out carrying  a positive, empowering message to women with no strings attached. No products to sell. No corporate image to make-over. Just pure, undiluted positivity. It’s the case of the award winning PSAs by the wonderful organization Girls Inc.

Their YouTube page does not allow embedding the video on external sites, so click on the link below to open up the video in a new window:

Girls Inc. “Tell Me”

The first time I watched it, it almost made me choke up…

Share this video with your friends and family!