Jezebel

FWIW, Ogilvy is owned by a woman -- and a women's college grad. Not that that means ANYTHING, i'm just saying.

"Blah blah, blah blah blah, blah."

They were retouched. I wouldn't say that their bodies were altered, but all ad photography is retouched, come on.

They're expanding beauty for girls who are a little bigger but not for girls who are inconsistently colored or dusty?

again, missing the point.

Oh thank fucking god. He only retouches all the other beauty product ads.

I was wondering what happened to Nadine!

@ineffable.me: I haven't been paying much attention to this. What is the point, exactly?

@nicebrownboy: Dusky with AGE! Ahahahaha.... oh shit.

How awesome would it be if someone leaked the original picture and we could see for sure that they were retouched (because I believe Dove is full of shit)?

"color correction" is code for "smoothing out cellulite and hiding bruises" - there is NO WAY their bare legs are that smooth and unblemished. I don't think that's really a big deal, but come on, don't lie. We're not morons.

uh...who cares?

Eh, I agree with what people said yesterday. They still showed women of all shapes and sizes. It was a rad step in the right direction.

Well, I can't imagine that Dove would twist its mustache and declare, "That's right! We digitally altered the women's images from head to toe, and we would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids and your stupid dog!"

oh please, dove as a client will have cleared/ok'd every single image before ogilvy went to print/air.

and yes, they will have retouched out cellulite, stretch marks, etc., just as they do with ANY shoot. i mean, have you seen any on the dove models? isn't that a bit weird? even skinny models who've never weighed more than 100lbs have stretch marks-- why not ladies who actually, you know gain and lose weight?

and in the TVC, they would have had to do it frame by frame, even though most of the visuals are from a distance, not close-up.

Okay, do I have all kinds of issues, because when I saw the Dove "real women" billboard, I thought, "damn, I wish I was that proportional and that my skin tone was that even. I'll never look like that"? And then felt bad?

@Archetype: well the point is that these women are "real" and more representative of women everywhere, which is what everyone is always asking more of. they were retouched. all pictures are retouched. but they werent retouched to make them look thinner or made into bobbleheads or whatever so the fact that they have to put out a statement about this is completely ludicrous.

@thenwemadeout: Exactly. Add to that any blemishes or ruddiness, stray hairs or hammer toes.

If that's not retouched--not saying it is--those women's bodies are delish! Yum, yum. As a curve-wanting woman, I approve.

@ineffable.me: That's what I figured. I agree. Carry on.

You know what, I don't care if the photoshopped out some blemishes or cellulite, honestly I don't.
But! I would have respected Dove more if they'd just admitted that they HAD in fact done this. Because, come on! No skin I know is that fucking flawless.

@Charlotte Corday: and frame-by-frame retouching is expensive, so it WILL have shown up on ad budget.

BUT, i still tip my hat to dove for showing women of various sizes and colours. it's a step in the right direction, if a rather cynical ploy to hijack the feminist movement for profit.

I like the Dove ads. I liked seeing women that looked like most women look.

If the photos were altered to make skinny women/girls look even thinner, then I'd be up in arms about airbrushing.

"Bish plz" would have gone faster.

@tscheese: Same here. Even though my belly might be the same size as some of those, it's not nearly as pretty. Now I know why, I guess.

@thenwemadeout: Or "slathered with make-up"

@Sophie: Seriously! Those women look damn good.

Is this worth this many posts?

I seriously doubt that there was photoshop-- look i'm skeptical as hell about everthing, but there is way too much for Ogilvy and Dove to lose on this one-- if the whole point of the campaign was that there would be no photoshopping, then there probably wasn't.

Holy run-on paragraph! Anyway, I think those women look fine. Like everyone else is saying, all ads get retouched. For many reasons. And of course they are gonna smooth the skin and get rid of a little cellulite, but that's obvious. I think the models were probs happy that they were made to look like their best selves. It's not like they were edited to look like teeny weeny sizo 0's, were they? Sometimes press-releases are so pointless.

I had cellulite and bruises when I was a 115 pound 14 year old. Just sayin'. "Minor color correction" indeed.

@tscheese: You could if you bought Dove products, obvs!

unilever still owns dove. and axe. and approves those god-awful commercials for axe that portray women as drooling idiots over a man's scent.

regardless of retouching, their messaging for other brands are sexist and awful, so they're still worthy of being called out.

@ineffable.me: I'm with you. Why do we have to pick apart the ONE step in the right direction that we're finally given? If we WANT to see more realistic images in advertising, shouldn't we be encouraging Dove to move further in this right direction instead of cynically second-guessing them at every turn? I mean, clearly we still have a ways to go before truly "real" beauty is celebrated, but Dove is clearly ahead of most of the rest of the pack.

@lermanzo: then you will never see any progress in the right direction ever if you are willing to cling to such little things at these. because everything in the world is owned by like the same 3 or 4 companies.

@nicebrownboy: Yes, what is the "correct color" for women?

@treecut: I color correct my snapshots using the handy-dandy "enhance" button in iPhoto. It's not as big of a deal as it sounds.

Hey man, all I know is that they looked like this before they were "retouched":

[majikthise.typepad.com]

@funnyface: I know, I was just joking.

@ineffable.me: well, to me, they need to move forward as a company and make real steps to promote real beauty and real women. i don't think we should reward them for basically trying to undo their own brand messaging.

With the quality of digital images now, I am sympathetic for the need for some retouching. It's not like in real life we are constantly under full florescent glare that illuminates our every pore, hair and wrinkle. Well, sadly some of us probably are.

I'm a print manager for an advertising agency, a big one. We've added weight, uncrossed eyes, reconstructed teeth, erased wrinkles and added wrinkles. You name it we've photoshopped it. I've had clients who wanted races changed on models. I've changed lottery balls from 69 to 68 "just in case" Advertisers are acutely concerned about their audience. I'm sure Ogilvey didn't retouch like they normally would because that's their campaign and they expected this scrutiny. I think the public should concern themselves more on pressuring agencies to stop making lazy and sexist advertising for Axe and products like that. I can imagine the douchebags who come up with that crap because I work with them. The creatives on Dove are tough women who had to fight really frickin hard in a douchebag dominated field to be taken seriously.

@lermanzo: as much as i hate axe commercials you just cant market everything in the same way. the dove campaign is different and positive and if you were to say boycott them, because they also own axe, the only message that they would get is that "real beauty" doesnt sell and then they would go back to what everyone else is doing.

@tscheese: i completely agree with you. the dove models didn't look like any real people i've seen in the ladies locker room. no stretch marks, no cellulite, no weird fat rolls or tan lines...i guess normal people don't have those.

the whole thing was photoshopped from the beginning. that is one hell of a long statement to basically say "we didn't retouch the photos outside of what is 'normally done'".

@thenwemadeout: They could have done it "the old fashioned way" with makeup and strategic lighting and lenses.

A good photographer with the right equipment can work *wonders* without photoshop.

Can we get a bigger version of this picture? It certainly doesn't look flawless to me.

@lermanzo: So what's the point of trying at all, then? Should they have used blonde, 90-lb models like every other company, so you wouldn't hate them? Even with the assumptions you're making that they altered these too much, they're still doing some good with their marketing dollars.

@lermanzo: I agree! Give me a break, Dove. Celebrating "real" women's bodies while selling them creams and lotions to hide their flaws. They are just hypocrites trying to get our MONEY!

@HistoricUpstart: dove sells soaps and lotions! whats so bad about soap and lotions!

@veej: male creatives, by and large, one of life's true horrors. i know, i've dated a few.

@ineffable.me: It's not the selling of soaps and lotions that's objectionable, necessarily, it's the message that a company uses to sell their product. The messages repeatedly sent by Unilever are consistently less than socially responsible.

@HistoricUpstart: But generally, it seems to me that the message the Dove Real Beauty campaign tries to send is more along the lines of "you are fabulous and deserve to take great care of yourself" as opposed to "you should feel bad if your eyelashes aren't as long, and your skin isn't as smooth, and your lips as pouty and plump as this airbrushed model." Can't we give them some credit for being BETTER than oh so many alternatives?

@HistoricUpstart: Disney owns ABC. Would you recommend people stop watching Lost, Ugly Betty or Brothers & Sisters because Snow White and Sleeping Beauty had to be rescued by big strong men?

If you really want to make an impact, show Unilever what works.

I don't know what's more offensive: that Dove thinks that explanation isn't suspect, or that so many of you think women that size *must* have cellulite and other imperfections.

I agree, the campaign was a step in the right direction, but I want more. I have serious issues with Unilever but I appreciate what Dove is doing. I wouldn't mind if they said "we touched up skin tones, bruises, and scars blah blah" because that doesn't bother me too much, though as an anemic, I bruise everywhere, and I wouldn't mind seeing a fellow bruisy model every once and awhile.

@funnyface: I definitely appreciate that the Real Beauty campaign is a step in the right direction, it's just important not to let it hoodwink us into not also examining its deeper purpose - to sell us shit that we probably don't need.

You *have* to color correct professional photos. Artificial studio lighting does weird things when it shows up on film (or digital.) They can get really close to natural looking light in a studio these days, but I'm telling you, human eyes can see the difference. You won't know *why* it looks off or wrong, but you'll know it is not right.

It's like how the animators for Ratatouille spent months trying to get the right color of green for lettuce because you'll know if it's just a hair off and then it will look truly disgusting instead of appetizing.

So just to be clear, Annie will speak out about whether or not she had a guy cover up some cellulite, but not a word about the LeBron James/Giselle cover?

Way to prioritize, there.

@HistoricUpstart: It's really hard for me not to find it really fucking insulting and maniuplative when I think of Dove ads juxtaposed against Axe ads. It's like they're saying, "Ladies, you are all so beautiful with your different shapes and sizes. Please know this and feel empowered by it. And support our" And then to the guys they are saying, "Heh heh heh, we know what's hot for REAL (vapid, scantilly clad, skinny girls)." I am personally deeply offended by this and I won't be buying ANYTHING from Dove.