# Model Slams Magazine for Photoshopping Her Body



## SoulfulRecover

Model Slams Magazine for Photoshopping Her Body, Posts Unretouched Shot

Anyone else getting tired of this? It's not up to the model how she is retouched in someone else's/companies/re-touchers vision. You're there to model and that's it. Seems like people are doing this for their 15 minutes in the spot light.

Having said that, it was very poorly photoshopped


----------



## wyogirl

I understand what you are saying-- that this type of "outrage" seems to fill the media lately.  But I agree with the model.  She has a brand to uphold as well and the magazine is using her brand to sell copy.  I mean, think of the classic super model type... say Cindy Crawford (classic right?) Well what if someone photoshopped out her beauty mark.  That is a very particular part of her and her look.  Her look is her brand... its what got her thousands of modeling jobs in the 90's.  Photo retouching is part of the business, but when you go manipulating someone's body or face to the point that it no longer resembles any part of reality.... I dunno, I just think there is a fine line to walk with retouching.

And I have to say that what I'm particularly tired of is 1. Bad photoshop jobs... like the kind that just look terrible, and 2. the unrealistic photoshop jobs that make the perfect body an entirely unrealistic and unattainable goal for young women.


----------



## limr

I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

limr said:


> I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.



What about it are you sick of?


----------



## Scatterbrained

I think there are a few things here that are getting missed in the "how dare she" campaign.  Wyogirl pointed out one, which is that Zendaya has a "brand".   She's not an anonymous runway model.  She's a celebrity actress brought up through the Disney machine.   People know her, and they know what she is supposed to look like.   Disney tends to push normal but good looking people in their teen sitcoms.   Obese but lovable.  Curvy and cute.  etc.   Turning Zendaya into a fake baked anorexic runs counter to that ethos.  It would be like someone removing Nicki Minajs butt in Ps or slimming Angelina Jolie's lips.


----------



## Braineack

is there anything that girl doesn't complain about?



> It would be like someone removing Nicki Minajs butt in Ps or slimming Angelina Jolie's lips.



so, like, a natural human body?


----------



## Scatterbrained

Braineack said:


> is there anything that girl doesn't complain about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be like someone removing Nicki Minajs butt in Ps or slimming Angelina Jolie's lips.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so, like, a natural human body?
Click to expand...

What's wrong man, you don't like an overloaded trunk?


----------



## Derrel

I saw the Zendaya thing, and I think one of the biggest influencing decisions might very well have been THIS MONTH'S new Demi Lovato shoot, touted web-wide and world-wide as , "*Demi Lovato, no makeup, no Photoshop*." That promotional photoshoot garnered the kind of publicity that is simply impossible to buy, no matter how big a promotional budget an actress/singer/celebrity/model has at his or her disposal. Within fifteen days of the Demi Lovato no makeup, no Photoshop shoot's world-wide buzz on the 'net, Demi Lovato was the musical guest on NBC's Saturday Night Live...one of **the** absolute most-difficult musical gigs to get a crack at.

Hey...Zendaya is part of the same cohort as Bella Thorne, Victoria Justice, Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus,Demi Lovato, Justin Bieber. This is a hugely media-driven group...getting free publicity on hundreds and hundreds of web sites by doing something as simple as what Zendaya did again, creates "buzz" that one simply can NOT buy or get any other way. I look at this as a planned career move, probably inspired by her PR firm.


----------



## SquarePeg

I don't care if she outed them for the buzz or because she thought she looked bad in the photo.  As the mother of an almost 13 year old who is a fan of Zendaya, I'm sick of it.  I do not want my daughter to see nothing but unrealistic, photoshopped bodies in the media.  It's bad enough for girls' body image that they are bombarded with anorexic looking models when it comes to fashion models but to see that ridiculous edited image of someone who has a beautiful body already is ridiculous.


----------



## Scatterbrained

Derrel said:


> I saw the Zendaya thing, and I think one of the biggest influencing decisions might very well have been THIS MONTH'S new Demi Lovato shoot, touted web-wide and world-wide as , "*Demi Lovato, no makeup, no Photoshop*." That promotional photoshoot garnered the kind of publicity that is simply impossible to buy, no matter how big a promotional budget an actress/singer/celebrity/model has at his or her disposal. Within fifteen days of the Demi Lovato no makeup, no Photoshop shoot's world-wide buzz on the 'net, Demi Lovato was the musical guest on NBC's Saturday Night Live...one of **the** absolute most-difficult musical gigs to get a crack at.
> 
> Hey...Zendaya is part of the same cohort as Bella Thorne, Victoria Justice, Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus,Demi Lovato, Justin Bieber. This is a hugely media-driven group...getting free publicity on hundreds and hundreds of web sites by doing something as simple as what Zendaya did again, creates "buzz" that one simply can NOT buy or get any other way. I look at this as a planned career move, probably inspired by her PR firm.


Yep.  And Zendaya, Demi Lovato, Miley Cyrus, and Bella Thorne are all Disney alums.  They are riding the current cultural zeitgeist of "be proud of your body", something that Disney is quite wary of with their casting choices as well.  I see this as being perfectly within character, and likely keeping with the interests of their fanbase, which is young women.  I don't see this as being much different than a Dove commercial from a message standpoint.  It just has the added dimension of her celebrity, which means her figure and complexion are already world famous, so altering her frame and skin type is a bit of a double wammy.


----------



## Derrel

Exactly...this is a publicity-seeking move, perfectly in line with the *be proud of your body* thing that's being pushed right now. This whole "outing" of magazines that do extensive manipulation of well known celebrity figures has one advantage over advertising: advertising campaigns run for a finite time, and then basically, disappear! THings that have gone viral on the web have a much,much longer shelf life and are very easy to keep alive for long time frames.

These types of incidents are searchable under "Photoshop fails", "Photoshop disaster", and so on. These incidents tend to be aggregated and posted on HUGE web sites, which reach tens of millions of targeted consumers. Again--this is the type of publicity that simply CAN NOT BE BOUGHT, ever! To a person who makes a living from celebrity/fame/the web/the media, this type of an incident brings with it _a huge stamp of legitimacy_, of _being somebody_, and so on.

I'm not saying that this idea of being proud of one's own body is a bad message, because I think it is a very good message; but what we are dealing with here has huge publicity implications for a star that is not quite in the same league as the other Disney/Nickelodion celebrities; multiple other celebs have done the same thing with retouched images of themselves that were splashed across the covers of national magazines that cater to their target audience.


----------



## Designer

Unless the photoshop "fail" was done on purpose and at the direction of the model herself.


----------



## The_Traveler

I'm quite proud to say that I know absolutely none of those names.


----------



## EIngerson

Ummm, read the contract before you sign it? No way in hell she did a shoot for a product or magazine without a model release form. She doesn't own the image, they do.

Regardless of what she thought, They'll manipulate the image how they see fit.

So would I for that matter.


----------



## rexbobcat

Just because you can doesn't necessarily mean it's a "good" thing. Yeah, the magazine probably had the right to manipulate the images, but that doesn't mean the model is required to stay quiet about the butchering of her physiology.

People do something and then criticism and pull the "IT'S A FREE COUNTRY" card like that absolves them of any responsibility for the criticism they're receiving.

If you look at the photo, her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.

I would be pissed too.


----------



## EIngerson

"Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.

Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.


----------



## 480sparky

The poor thing should slam PetaPixel for calling her a signer.

Whatever a signer is.


----------



## limr

SoulfulRecover said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it are you sick of?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## rexbobcat

EIngerson said:


> "Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.
> 
> Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.



It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic. She's not relegated to keeping quiet about shitty Photoshopping just because said Photoshopping was legal.

I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your refutation because it doesn't represent anything I was arguing against. I already said the magazine was well within their rights. But can and should are important. The court of public opinion is fickle.

I mean, it's not like the magazine had to pull the issue.


----------



## EIngerson

rexbobcat said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.
> 
> Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.
> 
> "Well that's business." Yeah, it is.
> 
> But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.
Click to expand...


Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing. 

On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.


----------



## rexbobcat

EIngerson said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.
> 
> Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.
> 
> "Well that's business." Yeah, it is.
> 
> But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing.
> 
> On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.
Click to expand...


You assume that the complaints were meant to be anything more than a bad review. The shaming worked well enough for the magazine to pull the issue. And the model still got paid. So it's kind of a win-win as opposed to the possibility of not being paid at all because of a stringent contract. Besides, we don't even know the contract negotiations here. I imagine they were handled by Zendaya's management rather than being personally scrutinized by Zendaya herself. At the celebrity level of publicity, I don't know how involved or knowledgeable they are behind the scenes since they're a part of this huge, confusing, trademarked machine already.

The fact of the images being out there is already irrelevant since they've already been debunked. Another win.

Sometimes work (and life) isn't as simple as "if you don't like it change it or don't do it." It's often about risk management, and you don't always get to have your whole cake and eat it too. Sometimes you've got to settle for a slice.


----------



## EIngerson

rexbobcat said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Good thing" is irrelevant. And I never said it was a good or bad edit. It was an edit. If an experienced model doesn't know the ins and outs of the business, shame on them. Contracts are a joint agreement. If you don't read them and push your own agenda you get what you get.
> 
> Idealism has no play on legality. Business will always be business. But you're right. She's doing her due diligence to publicize her bad review of them. Good on her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant in business but not as a cultural topic.
> 
> "Well that's business." Yeah, it is.
> 
> But I don't believe she sued the magazine for their editing did she? Nope. She just publicized it. The magazine can use the image within the extent of the contract. And I've never seen a model sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I don't exactly understand your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cultural topic….Idealism…. same thing. I think we said the same thing about publicizing.
> 
> On the contract peace, I never said anything about non-disclosure. I'm saying if you feel strongly about your likeness not being changed, put it in the contract. Have a written agreement that states they will not alter your likeness/body features. Going hay-wire after you see the finished product is too late. The photo's out there. Complaints now are nothing more than a bad review.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You assume that the complaints were meant to be anything more than a bad review. The shaming worked well enough for the magazine to pull the issue. And the model still got paid. So it's kind of a win-win as opposed to the possibility of not being paid at all because of a stringent contract.
> 
> Sometimes work (and life) isn't as simple as "if you don't like it change it or don't do it."
Click to expand...


LOL, I didn't assume anything. I'm completely objective on the topic. Like I said, Good on her for going so public with it. If I ran the magazine I would absolutely NOT pull it. I have my own rational behind that but I don't want to type that much. lol.

I tend to agree with many of you "false beauty" aspect of it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look like a magazine model. Hell, I honestly find it completely unattractive. Complaining after the damage is done is not what's going to fix it though. Education and awareness of the industry is what's going to hold weight. There are some very popular professional models that are on the right track. Posting videos and giving seminars on the truths of the industry. It's admirable of them and I applaud it. Unfortunately it doesn't have the traction it needs. I have 2 boys, so I don't have a personal drive to get behind the cause. But I've worked with enough models to understand the unreasonable lengths girls will go to to achieve perceived beauty.

Tragic really, but I don't think it'll change.


----------



## rexbobcat

Yes, but these concepts have to be packaged in some way for the lay men and women outside of the creative and publishing industries/hobbies.

Sometimes the takeaway is that the industry isn't going to make a sweeping change any time soon, so those who buy these magazines for the people featured need to be aware that stuff like this happens.

I think it empowers the consumer, which is sometimes all that can be done.


----------



## EIngerson

rexbobcat said:


> Yes, but these concepts have to be packaged in some way for the lay men and women outside of the creative and publishing industries/hobbies.
> 
> Sometimes the takeaway is that the industry isn't going to make a sweeping change any time soon, so those who guy these magazines for the people featured need to be aware that stuff like this happens. I think it empowers the consumer, which is sometimes all that can be done.



 Absolutely agree. But…..Anything short of a model revolt and public boycott will leave things status quo.


----------



## Braineack

you guys are all just racist.


----------



## Designer

rexbobcat said:


> .. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.


Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning.  What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?


----------



## SquarePeg

Designer said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning.  What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?
Click to expand...


Are you saying that the magazine used a horribly edited photo that paints their publication as amateurish and misogynistic so that the model could protest and they would both get publicity out of it?  While I usually love a good conspiracy theory, I think that's a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Braineack

Designer said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> .. her hips are warped to the point of being impossible in terms of human proportions. It's frivolous and unnecessary use of Photoshop.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I think all this was planned from the beginning.  What photo editor who knows anything would accept that kind of modification without some ulterior motive?
Click to expand...

have you ever looked at any magazine ever?

Everyone should assume every picture, in any grocery store magazine, is *extremely* manipulated.


































If you seriously want this to stop, stop doing photoshoots for subpar magazines.  It's that simple.


----------



## cgw

As Errol Morris says, "believing is seeing."

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/staging-manipulation-ethics-photos/?_r=0


----------



## Solarflare

So does that model "Zendaya" still get modeling jobs now ?

What I think is especially interesting is that the model in question is thin as a stick anyway and really wouldnt need any manipulation whatsoever.

Also ironically the manipulated picture made her actually look less attractive, since they made her hips smaller.

At least some of the other examples have been clear increases in commonly perceived beauty, such as removing wrinkles.


----------



## Designer

Braineack said:


> have you ever looked at any magazine ever?


Yes, but not that type of magazine.


----------



## SquarePeg

Solarflare said:


> So does that model "Zendaya" still get modeling jobs now ?
> 
> What I think is especially interesting is that the model in question is thin as a stick anyway and really wouldnt need any manipulation whatsoever.
> 
> Also ironically the manipulated picture made her actually look less attractive, since they made her hips smaller.
> 
> At least some of the other examples have been clear increases in commonly perceived beauty, such as removing wrinkles.



I don't think I'd categorize her as a model.  That's likely the reason it got so much press.  She is an actress/minor celebrity/singer/Disney channel star so not a professional model who is used to having her image changed like that.


----------



## Braineack

Designer said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you ever looked at any magazine ever?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but not that type of magazine.
Click to expand...


those girls are manipulated in other ways (with plastic surgery and with money/promises).


----------



## The_Traveler

*[Parody]*

*Conversation with myself*

I too am upset by this modelling thing.
I had always wished I was taller, younger, better shaped and more subjectively handsome but those seem like minor flaws compared to my inner beauty which shines through my eyes.

It is a shame that these young women are kidnapped from their homes and forced into servitude working for peanuts and then thrown away.

o_ops, my mistake, they actually signed up for this?_
Well it is a shame that they earn so little compared to the male models.

_Oh, they actually get paid a lot more than the men. Umm, sorry for my mistake, again._
Well they probably only get more because there are so few willing to be in that line of work.

_There are thousands and they compete for the jobs_
Certainly they deserve the pay because they get so much abuse from other women for buying into this horrible system.

_Damn, wrong again. So while the models all enable this distorted view of womenhood by participing, they skate on the blame and its all the guys' fault.?_
I have to admit, I think that's a bit unfair.
My neighbors have been the coordinators of a service that boards and finds home for grehounds.  They enjoy it a lot.
I am thinking that I might provide a rescue and placement service for models.
I will buy a van, drive to New York and rescue the abused ones, then bring them back here and provide them a good home until I can place them with a kind family.

_Oh, so I shouldn't treat them as if they were dumb animals.  They have agency and are doing what they want and have the chance to make a great deal of money - and if I revile the entire system, I should be against them as willing participants. _
Damn, Mencken was right. "For every complex question, there is an answer that is simple, clear and wrong."

*[/Parody]*


----------



## The_Traveler

Another entry in the list of 'Life isn't Fair, Just or Even' facts.






From the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Another reason why my two personal heroes are the two women who made it through the Ranger training, doing something that I could probably not do in my best years.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

limr said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it are you sick of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Please always feel free to speak your mind in my threads no matter how long of a response it may be. I am here to hear others opinions otherwise I wouldn't ever bother posting


----------



## Braineack

Timely click-bait (and most likely 100% completely false for PR) article is timely: Wife Gives Husband Sexy Photos. When He Looks Closer, He Sees The Shocking Truth!


----------



## Derrel

The magazine is an online one, apparently. The editor of _Modeliste_ has published a lengthy apology/statement piece, found here. EXCLUSIVE: Modeliste Official Full-Length Statement On Zendaya Photoshopped Images - RumorFix - The Anti Tabloid

No, wait, apparently Modeliste is both a print and an on-line magazine, according to the British Daily Mail...one of the best sources for celebrity gossip, and one of the least-trustworthy sources for real news...it's BOTH a gossipy rag, and also an organization that has the resources and incentives to really dig, and to dig FAST when pop-culture type news stories break.

The "magazine" published the leather jacket shot that was retouched....yet...the magazine has not been published, according to the editor...not yet released...and yet...Zendaya is shaming them and they "pulled the issue"...but the issue was not actually released...so...

Here is how _Modeliste_ editor Amy McCabe began her statement: "_In light of our not-yet-released November issue, with Modeliste’s Cover Girl, Zendaya and the swirling controversy in regards to any re-touched images, I am compelled to publicly address this situation which was brought to my attention yesterday, personally by Zendaya and her parents. Upon review of the final edited images which had been submitted to us by an independent editing company, together, as a collaboration between myself, Zendaya and her parents, we concluded that the images had been retouched to an extent that was not acceptable and not true to the values and ideals we represent and promote in our publication. I, therefore, made the executive decision to immediately pull the issue in order to have this rectified and have the images restored to their original, natural state which will reflect the true beauty and radiance of Zendaya._" 

This is looking more and more like a pubby stunt to me...at least based on the type of shoddy journalism PetaPixel and other web sites have dished up.


----------



## Braineack

I wonder how much they paid her for this stunt?


----------



## Designer

Derrel said:


> This is looking more and more like a pubby stunt to me....


There you go.


----------



## EIngerson

Sounds more like a back pedal to me.


----------



## vintagesnaps

What Lenny said. 

Besides that, the magazine doesn't seem to actually have an actual publishing company - it's distributed by Magzter (whatever that is) so doesn't seem to be a large or well known (or reputable?? who knows) magazine by any stretch (it's US based and who ever heard of it?).

According to the editor's response they got the photo from a 'third party' of some sort. The orangeish photo posted by Petapixel doesn't look quite like the Instagram photo that the magazine says is its original. By the time Petapixel reposts a photo that's been reposted already the quality sometimes has deteriorated.

I don't think it's fair to accuse the actress herself of using this incident in any way unless there's some evidence to support that. She probably has been photographed and interviewed a zillion times and I don't know how much control she would have in how she's portrayed.


----------



## Derrel

Regardless of "what it is", the actions Zendaya took by posting the retouched photo of her right next to the original file of her have brought a large amount of publicity and attention and buzz to the photo set that Modeliste had done of her in Mexico. From what has been reported, and then from what the editor of Modeliste wrote, it seems like Zendaya was the instigator, the initiator, of the push-back against the Photoshopped images.

I just looked...Zendaya's Instagram account has 14 million followers, which is a pretty good-sized IG account. Zendaya has over TWICE the follower number of supermodel Candice Swanepoel, who has only 6.4 million followers. Zendaya is not really a "model", but is as has been mentioned a minor celebrity, one of the DIsney Channel's former stars, an actress and singer...and according to her official Facebook page, she lists herself as "*actor/director*" Zendaya

I forget who it was that said, "Any publicity is good publicity." This is really not unwelcome attention I think...one just cannot buy this type of publicity and buzz! In today's saturated media environment the only way to really attract a lot of notice is when something *goes viral*. As this did.


----------



## cgw

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

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


----------



## BananaRepublic

Once bought stay bought


----------



## Braineack

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


----------



## limr

BananaRepublic said:


> Once bought stay bought





Braineack said:


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



Um...what??


----------



## Braineack

hyperbole.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

cgw said:


> 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

Braineack said:


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





Braineack said:


> 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

limr said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of it, but not for the same reasons you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about it are you sick of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

BananaRepublic said:


> 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

BananaRepublic said:


> 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

limr said:


> BananaRepublic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## SoulfulRecover

Derrel said:


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



Some really bad editing in there and bad decisions although the reaction to Prince George was extreme. The photo was horribly blue prior to the edit.

I remember seeing the one with Filippa Hamilton and immediately thinking "what on earth did they do to her????"


----------

