seeingisnotbelieving

posts about #seeingisnotbelieving more →
The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
"I dare a magazine to put out one issue without retouching"? That's just silly, retouching is an integral part of the production process. Why not dare a magazine to put out one issue using only Times New Roman, or maybe an issue just in black and white?
Reply

Twilly
03/10/09

@chritter: All Times New Roman, now that would be a real design challenge.
Reply

Twilly was starred Twilly was unstarred

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@Twilly: Exactly, it could be like the sonnet form: constraint inspires creativity.

And NO DROP CAPS either!
Reply

Ceiling Cat
03/10/09

@chritter: But don't you think (in terms of the bottom line) that they would at least sell a ton more magazines? I would for sure buy ANY magazine that did it.

Also, unrelated to Chritter's comment, I can't help but think that this whole thing is how someone like Heidi Klum became fat. Never thought I'd feel sorry for a model, but...
Reply

Ceiling Cat was starred Ceiling Cat was unstarred

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@Ceiling Cat: The magazine business is in some very, very hard times right now. Titles are closing all over the place, cutbacks and layoffs in every layer of the industry. The bottom line is all that drives anything--if editors and art directors thought retouching hurt sales, they'd have stopped it years ago. People pay money to see an idealized world where the skies are bluer, the teeth whiter and the trees greener than in real life, at least that's my insider's take on it. A magazine that didn't use Photoshop at all (unless we're talking a literary journal or something like that) would be shooting itself in the foot.
Reply

shananigans aka reluctant california resident
03/11/09

@chritter: See, I think the exact opposite. I think magazines are failing because people want to see something more real. They are tired of being spoon-fed the same bull in EVERY magazine.
Reply

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/11/09

@shananigans aka cookie pants!: That's certainly possible. I tend to think it's more the ever-growing influence of alternative (free) media, i.e., the interwebz, but I'm sure a growing sameness and artificiality tends to be alienating to readers. Probably why I only read a few newsmagazines and political journals and get most of my softer news from places like this. Sigh. Can you tell I have conflicting views about the ailing biz that's paid my bills for ten years?
Reply

beastybeatsy
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
When I started college and had an introduction on how to use photoshop, the guy started off by saying "The camera never lies, well it didn't used to...", and then showed us how to make boobs bigger.

*le sigh*
Reply

beastybeatsy was starred beastybeatsy was unstarred

MeanMadMargaret
03/10/09

@beastybeatsy: Like I mentioned above: nowadays it's hard to trust what you see in photographs. It used to be that clever lighting would cover the little things here and there. But, these days it's all very manufactured.
Reply

MeanMadMargaret was starred MeanMadMargaret was unstarred

linnyt is a walking cliché
03/10/09

@MeanMadMargaret: seems like photography used to be an art and a skill. now it's a step in a computer process.
Reply

andheartss haz it
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I don't know if I have a problem with retouching as much as I have a problem with bad retouching.

Here at work, lots of retouching gets done. Its usually just enough to not bruise any egos...and it usually ensures job security one way or another. But I'll be damned if I hand over something that looks butchered.
Reply

andheartss haz it was starred

argle-bargle? or fou-ferraw?
03/10/09

@andheartss haz it: i agree that retouching can have its place, but i think that it's all too often abused and that that is what people here rail against (and what i feel uneasy about.) my 2008 calendar was a hillary clinton calendar. super cool... except that about a quarter of the pictures were so altered (they were trying to give her younger-looking skin... and airbrushed her into oblivion in the process) that she didn't look like herself. so that was a little troubling (for many reasons), even though it was funny (i wish i could scan that picture and show everyone; she looked like she was made of beige latex.)
Reply

badmutha
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
Also, how about allowing some "real" facial features on moddles over 35? Then the rest of us wouldn't think we are the scariest hags in the universe.
Reply

badmutha was starred badmutha was unstarred

LolaQuinn is full of beans
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I really like the idea of crediting the retoucher in the photograph. Just being able to look at a photo and see "Retouched by:" as proof that this is NOT a realistic photo could go a long way towards encouraging realistic body images.

I vividly recall being a teenager and scrutinizing YM models(remember YM!!) for flaws...and feeling hopeless that I looked so different.
Reply

linnyt is a walking cliché
03/10/09

@LolaQuinn: I get a thrill of excitement every time I see a model with freckles.

my sister's sr. portrait photographer removed all her freckles and even made her skin less pink. it looks like she is wearing a mask because that is definitely not her real face in that photo.
Reply

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@LolaQuinn: In my experience most images aren't retouched by just one retoucher, they tend to go through several rounds with several different folks doing the work. So the credits would quickly get rather... crowded.
Reply

LolaQuinn is full of beans
03/10/09

@chritter: Interesting. Maybe we should all just stop buying those magazines...
Reply

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@LolaQuinn: That's one possible solution, certainly. Accepting that images in magazines don't really reflect "reality" is another.
Reply

Mary Ratliff
03/10/09

@chritter: It's so easy to say "I accept those images as not reflecting reality."

It's not so easy to actually live your life that way.

We know, on a conscious level, that these pictures are impossible.

I doubt you could find a woman that thinks that the pictures in magazines are "real."

That doesn't stop them from internalizing the pictures, the thousands of them that they see every day, the thousands that are shoved in their faces, and thinking "I know it's impossible, but..."

Not to mention that the POINT of most of the advertising is "You can never be this good, but if you buy our product maybe you can get close."

Plenty of studies show that these things get to us no matter how often we tell ourselves that it shouldn't. I've been "retouching" my own pictures for fun (taking out people, adding in people, etc) for years, I know how easy it is to change them. I'm going to be learning how to do things like that for a living with motion graphics. I know that most of what we see isn't real, I LIVE that fact.

But I still have the same pitfalls and problems and low self esteem.
Reply

Mary Ratliff was starred Mary Ratliff was unstarred

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@Meiran: Fair enough, I didn't mean to sound curt. I've worked in magazine graphics for a decade, so maybe some internal ambivalence was coming out. I guess what I objected to was the notion that this was somehow something sinister done to trick people, when it's really just the way the industry works--people spend their money for pretty pictures of a vivid, idealized world, with cerulean skies and shiny teeth and bright colors, so that's what they get. If magazines found sales improved when they left the "flaws" in, they'd do that.
Reply

Dez.demona
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
"She's too powerful looking." And THERE'S your problem! Why can't we look powerful AND run around in a slinky dress? Shouldn't clothes be empowering? Shouldn't the point of advertising this product be that you can look powerful and strong and sexy?

If they're even photoshopping out the positive attributes rather than the "negatives" or "flaws" (as one who has freckles, I resent the implication that they're flaws), then what the hell is the point?
Reply

Dez.demona was starred Dez.demona was unstarred

baraqiel
03/10/09

@Dez.demona: Please, he started out saying "she's too big" and, realizing that sounded bad, altered it to a left-handed compliment. And then whittled her down to an imaginary shape.
Reply

baraqiel was starred baraqiel was unstarred

philoclea
03/10/09

@Dez.demona: Way to catch the most disturbing aspect of that video. That was really beyond someone with skewed ideals of beauty saying, "She's too fat" or "Her nose is too big." That was someone saying, "This woman looks too strong. She cannot be feminine."

Honestly, I feel like someone on here has, at some point, said that these mags and the fashion industry promote thin women because they're promoting powerlessness among women, and as much as I believe it, I always think it sounds a little too much like a feminist critique. But to hear someone say it, just like that, and not from a feminist point of view but from a, "Wow, this woman is so powerful and fit -- that's not what we want to advertise" perspective. Fucking blew my mind AND pissed me off, at the same damn time.
Reply

philoclea was starred philoclea was unstarred

philoclea
03/10/09

@baraqiel: I think it still reveals that he thought, "She's too powerful/athletic" might be a legitimate complaint. He could have said, "The proportions aren't right" or "the garment isn't falling in an attractive way" or whatever.
Reply

philoclea was starred philoclea was unstarred

baraqiel
03/10/09

@philoclea: No, no, but that would have suggested that the clothing was wrong instead of the woman's body. It's always the woman's body that's wrong, never, ever the clothes.
Reply

baraqiel was starred baraqiel was unstarred

Twilly
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
Even your family photos are retouched. I have mixed feelings as an ex-photo retoucher. While I think some of it is ridiculous and extreme, the purpose to sell product. No one wants buy a product off an messy photo.

I know I'm in the minority here, maybe I'm just used to it. Or maybe I as a designer in a major fashion retailer, I feel like the entire system is a shithole. Retouched magazine and ad photos are really only a small part of a much larger issue.
Reply

Twilly was starred Twilly was unstarred

rednrowdy
03/10/09

@Twilly: i have no problem with basic retouching - fly away hairs, blemishes, unwrinkling wrinkled garments and the like is fine.

nicole richie's thigh being photoshopped into half of itself (which happened way back in the day) is the problem. yes, a product has to sell, but if a model has to be photoshopped into half of herself in order to make that sell, then let's go back to drawing the models rather than taking pictures of them.
Reply

rednrowdy was starred rednrowdy was unstarred

camrie
03/10/09

@Twilly: MY family photos are retouched. I'm a graphic designer, my mom is a photographer, and my little bro insists on making idiotic faces in almost every pic...we've been known to head swap him in the whole-family Christmas pic.

I feel like if the world is used to seeing retouched photos (and since it's not a practice that's going to be dropped soon) then I don't feel horrible about getting rid of the random redeye, flyaway hair, or errant bra strap in my own pics :)
Reply

camrie was starred camrie was unstarred

AuntieEm (robots from the year 2000 > zombies)
03/10/09

@camrie: this!
Reply

HarpMadness
03/10/09

@camrie: I don't think this is what makes people upset, though. Well, maybe I should just speak for myself. Retouching for fly-away hairs, red eye, even the occasional pimple, I have no problem with at all. Even fixing lighting, etc. Whatever. What bothers me is when they actually CHANGE the way a person looks -- when they end up unrecognizable. That's really problematic for me. I especially hate it when they take women who are at least thin enough (most of the time probably arguably "too thin") and make them appear even thinner. That's a problem. That's setting up an even more impossible standard and treating it like it's attainable.
Reply

HarpMadness was starred HarpMadness was unstarred

prettycool
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I took a photo class in high school and we were fortunate enough to have a computer lab with photoshop. However, there were some people who airbrushed, filtered, and adjusted the hell out of their pictures, not to mention a handful of people who kept reshooting the same four skinny girls from our school. It got really boring during critique when I'd see a row of the same girls, wearing the same styles, with the same editing.
Reply

prettycool was starred prettycool was unstarred

sequined
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I think it would be so, so reassuring for people to know that even celebrities never actually look that good. I can't stop thinking about that Jessica Alba ad where they changed the entire shape of her body and then the weeklies used the photoshopped image as evidence of her great post-baby weight loss.

IT'S NOT REAL, PEOPLE!
Reply

sequined was starred sequined was unstarred

LaMorena
03/10/09

@sequined: I really appreciate the celebs who have the wherewithal to declare, "I don't really look like this! This is an unreal standard of beauty!"

When it's presented as real, it's a damaging and completely unobtainable standard of beauty. It's hard to keep that in perspective, even for those of us who KNOW it's not real.
Reply

LaMorena was starred LaMorena was unstarred

LadySoprano is a Fat-Fighting Superwoman
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
The only editing I've ever done to my own pictures is eliminating red-eye...and half the time I'm too lazy to do even that.
Reply

argle-bargle? or fou-ferraw?
03/10/09

@LadySoprano is a Fat-Fighting Superwoman: i've been known to cover up zits and crop-out the odd ex-boyfriend, but that's the extent of it...
Reply

HarpMadness
03/10/09

@argle-bargle? or fou-ferraw?: Cropping out ex-boyfriends doesn't count -- that's the new way to rip a picture in two after the break up.
Reply

HarpMadness was starred HarpMadness was unstarred

NatelysWhoresKidSister
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I worked at a women's magazine for many years (in the marketing department). My cube neighbor (and roommate at home) was the art director and I'd watch every month as she'd cobble together bits of this shot and that shot, hair from here, navel from there, and frankenphoto it all together.

Then we'd drag our fat, cellulitic, beer-sodden asses home on the subway and stick to our couch in the summer heat and eat Hot Pockets.
Reply

Uncommon Whore
03/10/09

@NatelysWhoresKidSister: Uh, maybe you guys should have been eating Lean Pockets instead.

I kid, I kid. But I love frankenphoto as a verb.
Reply

Uncommon Whore was starred Uncommon Whore was unstarred

HoooooooT
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I like that the documentary was called "Wet Dreams and False Images."
Reply

HoooooooT was starred HoooooooT was unstarred

novelidea
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I feel like EVERY magazine image is retouched nowadays. It is very discouraging. Sigh.
Reply

novelidea was starred novelidea was unstarred

MissyMcCLung
03/10/09

@sparklesaurus: Every magazine IS retouched these days. It is discouraging though.
Reply

MissyMcCLung was starred MissyMcCLung was unstarred

Kali Mama
03/10/09

@sparklesaurus: If it's not retouching, it's lighting, make-up and staging. It's not like there were ever glory days.
Reply

Kali Mama was starred Kali Mama was unstarred

argle-bargle? or fou-ferraw?
03/10/09

@sparklesaurus: @MissyMcCLung:

my thought is well, it sucks, but at least WE'RE aware of it (meaning most of the commenters and readers of this blog.) i think that the general population is still in the mindset of photograph = fact. people are aware of the existence of photo editing software, but i don't think most really comprehend the extent to which it is used.
Reply

hannapdx
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
I watched this this morning. I agree with them too, the retoucher should get a credit. It's an art piece not real life.
Reply

hannapdx was starred hannapdx was unstarred

Kivrin
03/10/09

@hannapdx: I'd never even thought of that aspect before, but it's so true. I completely agree.
Reply

Kivrin was starred Kivrin was unstarred

hannapdx
03/10/09

@Kivrin: neither had I, until I watched this. . .but it makes sense
Reply

hannapdx was starred hannapdx was unstarred

linnyt is a walking cliché
03/10/09

@hannapdx: it takes skill to do photoshop like that. it's not like just anyone can do it so they definitely should get credit.
Reply

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@hannapdx: It's a nice idea, but impractical. It's fairly rare to have just one retoucher work on an image, maybe for cover shots. The bulk of images are worked on in several rounds, going back and forth from agency to client, and often have a lot of different hands on them. You'd just end up with armies of tiny names in tiny print tucked in underneath the already tiny photo credit that nobody really reads.
Reply

Mary Ratliff
03/10/09

@chritter: Maybe they could credit the agency that does the retouching? I doubt a magazine farms out one image to five agencies...

Or maybe they do, I dunno. Maybe one is great at making people skinny and another specializes in swapping bodies and heads and the last gets rid of freckles.
Reply

Mary Ratliff was starred Mary Ratliff was unstarred

chritter is a nocturnal feminist mancatfish
03/10/09

@Meiran: Different titles do things differently--places with a lot of resources can do it all in-house, some send high-end stuff like cover images out to specialists, some have one outside agency do everything for them. Hey, I was a retoucher, retouchers are hard-working folks, the best of them work absolute magic. I have no problem with giving them credit. But I'm not holding my breath, mostly because in the culture they're seen as technicians, not artists like, say, photographers.
Reply

msAnthrope
03/10/09

In reply to The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines
twelve years ago i worked with a school portraiture company who sold this as one of their main benefits. they could take your hair from one shot, your smile from a second, and your pose from a third and composite them together. and of course, the requisite photoshopping... they always showed some teen with crazy hair, piercings etc and showed how they could put him into an ivy-league suit and hairdo for his parents to carry in their wallets!

it sold very well btw.
Reply

msAnthrope was starred msAnthrope was unstarred

Cookie Dough Monster
03/10/09

@msAnthrope: I have to admit, I had my senior portrait done for college graduation a few months ago and I would have loved to have that option. Most of the pictures turned out okay, but of course the one that looks the most natural (with a smile I actually like) had to be the goofiest of all poses... holding my cap in front of my chest instead of well, wearing it on my head. I'd love to play mix and match to get rid of that damn silly pose.
Reply

Dez.demona
03/10/09

@msAnthrope: It still does. I work in a photolab, and we're always getting crazy requests. Depending on the studio we get the pictures from, they might range from, "Remove all blemishes" (which we do anyway unless specifically instructed not to) to "Make FLAWLESS!" It's rather sickening, actually.
Reply

Dez.demona was starred Dez.demona was unstarred

Birthday Girl
03/10/09

@msAnthrope: My high school senior portraits were retouched without me even asking for it/without them asking my approval. It's really obvious in the 8x10. I didn't notice it until my sister got hers done and we were looking at them side by side, it just became so, so, so obvious. I said to her "god, what was wrong with me that they felt it was so necessary to do this?"

So next time you're wondering why Victoria Beckham is so damn skinny, imagine what it would be like to see how much airbrushing a magazine thought you needed before you were suitable to appear on their cover.
Reply

Birthday Girl was starred Birthday Girl was unstarred

The HZA.
03/10/09

@Birthday Girl: Mine were airbrushed too. They didn't even ask me. They erased a beauty mark on my face. And I was wearing a v neck shirt. It wasn't low cut at all, it was really tasteful. But they changed the neckline on my shirt! I couldn't believe it.
Reply

The HZA. was starred The HZA. was unstarred

msAnthrope
03/10/09

@Cookie Dough Monster:

@my cousin is an ape:

i actually wished i'd been able to do this too, for my own high school pix... i didn't get any of mine because they came out so wretched. of course, it also doesn't help that the majority of people they hire to take the shots aren't professional photographers by career... lots of them get hired on when the school portrait season fires up and they just need to "enjoy photography." taking great shots of people is an art and so the photolabs figured out they'd compensate for the lack of photographic talent with the magic of digital compositing.
Reply

msAnthrope was starred msAnthrope was unstarred

msAnthrope
03/10/09

@Birthday Girl:

that's so insulting. it's like some people who get their hands on photo retouching software think they've become gods or something. especially when somebody has natural "color" under their eyes, the way a lot of ethnicities do, and suddenly it gets removed because it gets called out as undereye shadows.
Reply

msAnthrope was starred msAnthrope was unstarred

msAnthrope
03/10/09

@Dez.demona:

i can imagine now especially with the insane retouching in magazines, etc... people want temporary plastic surgery, done digitally.
Reply

msAnthrope was starred msAnthrope was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#seeingisnotbelieving

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

The Times Calls Out Photoshopping Magazines

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment