Yesterday, I published a post about the storm around some unretouched photos of Jennifer Aniston from a Harpers Bazaar cover shoot. The quick version is that US website Jezebel published a shot they’d received from someone claiming it was an original out-take from the shoot, before the massive digital alteration took place. Soon after posting the shot and writing about it, in a post entertainingly called “How Your Jennifer Aniston Sausage Gets Made”, they received legal letters threatening them with action if they didn’t take it down.
The letter came from the photographer’s agent and sited ‘copyright infringement’. Jezebel objected and another letter came, claiming the shot had also been “doctored from the quality of files from our server from the shoot.”
Jezebel are calling bullshit on this claim, insisting that the agents (who need to carry favour with Jennifer) are freaking out because the photo is genuine.
When I first published the post (guested by Vanessa Raphaelly), it was based on my understanding the ‘before’ shot was real. I prepared the post late at night and I’m not entirely on my game this week because when I took another look at it after pressing ‘publish’ yesterday, I realised the shot was a fake (to her credit, so did Vanessa, I just hadn’t read that bit closely enough). So I took down the post since it was all a bit confusing and was making me uncomfortable.
HOWEVER.
The shot that appeared on the cover of Harpers Bazaar – just like EVERY photo you see of any female celebrity on a magazine cover or movie poster – was HEAVILY digitally altered. I know it was. I have an experienced eye.
Top Comments
This is a bit left field but ... Darling Husband bought a new bells & whistles camera on the weekend. He was trying out different settings and snapped off a few frames of me and I was horrified at how tired and old I looked, the photographed face wasn't the one I thought looked back from the mirror every morning! So I can kind of understand why celebrities request major photoshopping, I wouldn't want my tired old face on the front of the magazines so I am guessing that they don't either. But then I also maintain that if I had the plethora of hair/makeup/styling experts that the celebrities have I wouldn't need photoshop because all the work would be done already.
The other side of the story is explaining to Miss Almost12 that most of what you see is not true. To here credit she is becoming pretty adept at looking an image and taking it with a grain of salt.
I'm studying to become a photographer and some of the things we are learning at the moment shock me. Even with the knowledge that magazines are heavily photoshopped, learning the extent of it is surprising. We have recently been focusing on skin retouching, which involves blurring skin to make it seem smooth, removing blemishes and things like that. But I think people would be really surprised at just how much difference there is between a raw image and a processed one. Not even just people, but products and landscape and everything. I can guarantee that every single picture in a magazine is photoshopped to some extent. It's not just the model photos or beauty shots. However there is a difference between cleaning up an image (removing blemishes etc) with actually making people appear skinnier than they are or otherwise altering their appearance. I really don't agree with that and if ever asked to do that with my photographs will refuse. I don't know if this will change anytime soon but hopefully the good work Mia and others are doing for the cause will get us there faster. Sorry for the long post :)