Jezebel
Remember the horror of that almost-unrecognizable atrocity at left? Turns out we can blame Pascal Dangin for that. Dangin, you see, is what writer Lauren Collins, in this week's issue of the New Yorker, calls "the premier retoucher of fashion photographs", a onetime hairdresser who so believes in reincarnation (symbolic, not metaphysical) that, when he moved from France to the U.S in 1989, he chose the first very flight out of Charles de Gaulle airport on the very first day of the new year.
Many women are transformed by Dangin's computer stylus, which sits in a basement laboratory at "Box", his four-story, Manhattan Photoshop fortress: In addition to Drew, there is the trophy wife with the "flat" face and "short" legs; the shoulder blade found "in a recent project at W"; the cast of the Sopranos; Prada models; "a famous actress in her late twenties"; a "crunchy"-faced model; "another well known actress"; "an actress with a movie coming out this spring"; Kate Moss; models Liya Kebede and Raquel Zimmerman; Madonna. And then there is model Christy Turlington, who, Collins explains, "needs the least help".
Collins, interestingly (purposefully?) glosses over Dangin's flaws as adeptly as he reshapes a model's nasiolabial folds. Her interview subjects, she explains, liken him to "a translator, an interpreter, a conductor, a ballet dancer articulating choreographed steps". (She compares his work to that of painters Jasper Johns and John Currin; he is, she later explains solemnly, "savantlike".) Collins also seems almost resolutely disinterested in exploring Dangin's role in perpetuating unrealistic standards of beauty and when a photograph ceases to be a photograph and becomes, what Redbook editor Stacy Morrison once said, "an image": most of the critics and/or experts of photo manipulation Collins quotes are all long-dead; the only living people she does quote are all fans of Dangin; and she all but skips over the news that Dangin retouched Dove's "Campaign for Real Beauty" advertisements. And when she finally gets around to asking Dangin about the work he does and how it affects and defines those aforementioned standards of beauty, she follows his explanation — "I'm just giving the supply to the demand" — with a cynical parenthetical announcing, "fashion advertisements are not public-service announcements." (Yeah, tell that to Newsweek's Jessica Bennett, who put up this story on Friday, quoting a NYC stylist as saying "those young kids looking at the magazines, they're dreaming of something that doesn't exist.")
The work Dangin does, has, not surprisingly, made him very rich. (He owns homes in Manhattan, the Hamptons, and St. Bart's; in addition to the cover portrait of Barrymore, Dangin, with the help of favorite Photoshop tools as the smudge brush, the warping tool, and the clone stamp, retouched — or "tweaked" — 107 advertisements and 36 fashion photographs in the March 2008 issue of Vogue alone.) It has also, interestingly, made him somewhat of a god among the egotistical, easily-unimpressed bigwigs in the fashion and photography industries, who defer to his whims without a second thought. His list of clients is both impressive and iconic: Steven Meisel, Patrick Demarchelier; Annie Leibovitz ("Just by the fact that he works with you, you think you're good"); Inez and Vinoodh; Craig McDean, who says he gives Dangin "carte blanche" to basically do whatever he wants. Whether Dangin enjoys all the adulation and deference that comes his way, Collins does not make clear (nor does she explore the fact that from the photographers to the photo retouchers to the art directors, images of women in fashion magazines are manipulated and decided upon by men before they ever appear before a female fashion editor's eyes.) As for the things Dangin doesn't enjoy — on the women whose photographs he alters, that is — they include the following: ropy blue veins; bony temples; fleshy chins; bumps of all sorts; big knees; "slumpy" legs; bad pores. Oh, and of course, fat asses.
Several days later, Demarchelier returned to the studio to continue winnowing images for the show. The conversation turned to which shot to include of another well-known actress.Pixel Perfect [The New Yorker]
"I like her in this one, because she looks very natural," Dangin said."Yes," Demarchelier agreed. "In that other pose, she looks like an actress."
"But she's also very good here," Dangin said, of a shot that showed her partially nude.
"Yes, she's very beautiful in that position. Do you want to cut it?"
"No, no. I'm going to keep it for the ass," Dangin said.
"Maybe we could redo the ass."
"Yes, the ass is quite heavy."
Related: Picture Perfect [Newsweek]
Earlier: Photoshop of Horrors
Vogue Cover Girl Drew Barrymore Has Been Powerfully Photoshopped
Our Fifteenth Minute: That Faith Hill Photo Wasn't Actually A Photo, Redbook Editor Explains
Comments
nasolabial folds
Retouching: it's as plain as the vadge on your face!
This may seem really horrible to say, but the photo at left is a really good job. The idea is horrible but at least she doesn't look like that Hayden Panti..something in the Candie's ad.
I adore Drew, but lets be honest, she has the "Barrymore chin". It is frightening in person. And yet here there is no sign of it. Photoshop is her friend.
@ManhattanManLovin': but she doesnt look like Drew Barrymore either.
If you can retouch anyone into being ideal, then why do print models still exist?
@ManhattanManLovin': Yes, but she doesn't look like herself. Why would you put one of the world's most recognizable movie stars on the cover of a magazine and then airbrush her into a completely different person?
i just don't see how people can be so into photoshopping. it's mind numbingly boring work. so much easier to take a great picture by doing correct exposure and lighting tricks and actually make a beautiful image than dealing with photoshop.
I hereby officially and cordially invite Pascal Dangin to kiss my ropy blue veins, knobby knees, slumpy legs, bad pores, and--above all--my heavy American ass. This is why I don't read fashion magazines, and it saddens me that The New Yorker is gleefully standing in line to prostrate themselves at the altar of unrealistic and stupid standards of beauty.
Shouldn't the first sign of a good photo-retoucher be that you can't tell they've done it? Like makeup and plastic surgery: you pay the most for subtle results.
I can barely take red-eye out of my own pictures, but even I could have made Drew look less like an alien barbie.
@ManhattanManLovin': Is today opposite day?
Once again, Tyra was wrong.
Lately, I've been pining for the interesting looking actors of yore -- now I know who to blame. Asshole.
@PICKLES IN MY TUNA: Yes, but WHY O WHY doesn't she wear a yashmak at all times with a jaw that offensive??!!11!
@southernbitch: Agreed. My husband is a retired fashion photographer and I love looking at his work. He did not shoot in digital and would wait for the sun to shift in order to get a particular shot..etc. Photography is a whole different job now and no longer an art.
Crunchy faces? Slumpy legs? Does this man just flip through the old Roget's Thesaurus and pick an adjective at random?
You there! Allow me to Photoshop you, for you have...crispy knees!
Poor Drew. Photoshopped beyond recognition here and turned completely orange in the Cover Girl commercials she's been doing for makeup that supposedly matches your true skin tone.
@ineffable.me: @ediebeale: Exactly. Methinks someone who was REALLY talented with PhotoShop could find a way to enhance a celeb's appearance without rendering her unrecognizable. It's at the point where I can never tell who's on the cover of a magazine until I read the accompanying headline.
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the news that the Dove ads were retouched makes me want to cry.
@ineffable.me: No, she doesn't. I didn't recognize her at first.
I'm caught between admiration that it's not obviously shopped at first glance and disgust that it looks nothing like her.
@ediebeale: Why? Because realism isn't profitable.
@funnyface: Yeah, like what was the point of the whole campaign then?
Why does he earn so much money when the re-touched photos bear no resemblance to the actual subject? Why not just draw a picture of Drew Barrymore? Why even pretend it's a real photo?
@southernbitch: Werd. Photoshop should be a last resort, not industry standard. I think it's lazy and destroys the actual art of creating a good photograph.
@howdybeep (rear wheel drive): Ack! Thanks for pointing that out.
@keldo: "Photography is a whole different job now and no longer an art."
Surely you aren't serious.
They should do a post where they retouch a photo of one of the Jezebelle writers and show a step by step or how its done.
@keldo: it really is. i went to art school for photography and now i can't do anything with it. i was trained to take 4x5 color images. there isn't a darkroom outside of academia where i can produce work. i loathe digital photography and think the image quality is horrendous. thank god i also got a "practical" degree and found work in policy.
I'm a master of the clone stamp tool. Can I have a home in Manhattan?
@keldo: And all their little PSAs about how dangerous all this retouching is?
[www.dove.us]
Oh and if you think my halfway-admiration is bad--I think it is bad too, but I'm coming from a 'shoppers perspective--look at the comments at the Dove Real Beauty Evolution campaign video on YouTube. They'll make you cry.
"Why didn't they just use a pretty girl in the first place?"
Why indeed.
"How can I do that?"
SIGH.
@funnyface: Yeah reading that really upset me, too. Don't pretend to be showing real women in all their untouched glory if you really aren't, Dove.
Just think how our lives would be different if that first flight of the year out of Paris had been to Botswana.
@blackbirdfly: I know! Every time I see that commercial I sit there trying to figure out if they're kidding or not! It's just WRONG!
OK, changing real humans into unachievable fakes is ridiculous enough, but why does the fake have to look so ugly? It's like all the stars who have bad plastic surgery: don't they realize that even with flaws, they looked so much better than before?
If you're going to pursue such a stupid idea, at least have a strong execution.
If this guy is the artist, what are the photographers? Canvas? This isn't art, it's butchery. He takes beautiful women and makes them look plastic and alien.
@blackbirdfly: Gah. I hate that commercial. "I say: hide your flaws!". Really, Drew? Do you say that? Because that is terrible.
@ineffable.me: I meant that it's a whole different art than what it was. Digital photography and photoshopping took it in a whole new direction.
Bah, he takes beautiful women and airbrushes the crap out of them until they vaguely resemble themselves. Make him stop.
It all seems very ironic that we seem to have come somewhat full circle, from the painting to the photograph to the photoshop, the only difference being in the lie of photoshop as being realistic.
Would anyone complain that the Venus de Milo was unrealistically beautiful? Of course, a work of art isn't exactly an advertisement, but what about actual early advertisements which were heavily reliant on paintings and pen and ink illustrations of beautiful women with tiny waists.
So is this just a reoccurence of a familiar advertsiing tactic, or is it something more sinister?
This is kinda surprising to me. We can't blame this guy to make a lot of money by retouching photos because I doubt the targeted women buying those magazines would like to see (im)perfection, which is exactly what those magazines are supposed to sell (perfection, of course). And did you know they do the same for Playboy? Damn it! ;)
I used to be a Photoshop editor. I made 7 bucks an hour. And with that salary, I just bought a sandwich from Potbelly yesterday.
Twilly, livin' the high life from making people's arm fat disappear!
@mepo: It's been done here. Do a search for the tag "American Apparel". It was a follow up to the piece about their crazily unflattering clothes. If you haven;t checked out the Faith Hill classic, do so, it's crazy. There's also some good Cameron Diaz and Kimberley Stewart side-by-sides of the same shot floating around somewhere that are pretty illuminating.
I can't help but wonder if unattainable beauty would be that big of a deal if as a culture we weren't so fixated on image over every other human characteristic. Maybe the solution has nothing to do with Dangin and his ilk, and more to do with teaching and modeling the importance of kindness and brains over superficial appearances.
@southernbitch: Well in this instance they do everything. Best possible hair and makeup, best possible lighting, drool-worthy lenses on the camera, and then the retouching starts. So it's not an either/or sort of thing.
@katastic: Yeah, I think it's okay to hide your blemishes and such, but I prefer not to use burnt sienna foundation to do so.
@southernbitch: I am hoping that the pendulum will swing back eventually and old school photography will be back in vogue. Or at least be appreciated for the skill involved.
@keldo: It really pisses off the Dude (who's taken up digital photography as a hobby) when I BFA all over his "art" for being nothing more than manipulation in photoshop.
Seriously. He could not take a gorgeous photo if he tried. Everything must be run through CS3.
@Pantani: Hey, good point! I have always been aware/surprised at how women in centuries old paintings all look the same; big, heavy lidded eyes, small noses and thin lips- especially in Dutch Masters'. Totally obvious to me now that it is the photoshop of it's time.
@funnyface: If anyone wants to know the truth of what you go through to make a commercial look "real", I can tell you all the shameful secrets - I'm a producer who, up to very recently, made beauty commercials.
I fixed my "crunchy face" by letting it soak in a bowl of milk for a bit. Big whoop.
But then again, I believe in transubstantiation--symbolic, not metaphysical (sorry, Jindal!). My face is the body and blood of my complete socio-economic self-worth amongst the greater populace. Take me, eat me.
@keldo: well just because there is digital photography and photoshop available doesnt mean that people stopped using regular film. and even if people use a digital camera, it doesnt mean that they are going to make it all crazy in photoshop either.
if you dont have the talent to take a good photograph, photoshop can do nothing for you.
@Pantani: Everyone knows a drawing is fake. The point of a photograph is to capture a real moment in time.
@Joonie: Who says imperfection is so ugly no one wants to see it? USWeekly, Perez Hilton and Snap Judgements beg to differ.
As if women were'nt under enough pressure to stay as thin as twiggy, they are now led to believe flawless skin and an almost pleasure-doll android appearance is the key to beauty.
When I was a kid, there was a PSA on Saturday mornings where a 10-year-old girl was all sad that she didn't look like the supermodel picture she had taped next to the mirror. Then magically, said model appears in schlumpy clothes and flat hair and is all "Oh hai, that's me over there, here I'll show you" and she took the kid on a tour of hair and makeup and lighting and camera men and airbrushing. So the girl knows that this woman is beautiful, but only because she has a cadre of highly trained people who make her so. It really stuck with me as a kid and I think helped me figure out early on that it was okay if I didn't look like Kelly Kapowski.
That said, it took me another 15 years or so to realize no diet/sex/makeover tip given to me by Cosmo et al would ever work. If only there had been a PSA for that, too.
@Archetype: you and me both. real world ny photoshop... a bunch of retouchers in a house together trying to be named america's next top retoucher.
When I hear that an actress is on the cover of a magazine, I'd like to be able to see said actress, not a woman who looks like a freakish mutilation of the actress. I still think Drew looks horrible on this cover and unlike herself. I think she'd still sell magazines with the "Barrymore Chin." And I think people would still buy Vogue, even if Gwyneth looked more human and less alien this month.
@brookidy: good freakin point! i'm pretty painfully average, but if they can make me look like a model, then what's the point of the real ones... in print anyway, i mean you can't photshop a runway.