It was only a matter of time… Mattel has been given the rights to turn the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge into Barbie Dolls. Have a look at the first two pics in the gallery for a comparison of the real couple and the Barbie version.
Also this week -Â Adele, the Grammys, an official Oscars portrait gallery and all the news from the week
Mattel will sell official Royal Wedding Barbie Dolls just in time for the royal couple's one-year anniversary.
You might’ve noticed this stamp popping up in the gallery today, Here’s the deal. While we wish all magazine and advertisers would just tell us when they’re using Photoshop as per the Govt’s Voluntary Code Of Conduct, the reality is they don’t. That’s why we’ve created our own Photoshopped stamp, which we will apply to images of a person we believe has been digitally altered in a way that could affect your perception of your own body or face.
Comments
65 Comments so far
loading...
The cover of Adele needs at least 3 stamps – yikes, they really changed her!
loading...
1) I like the photoshop stamp, I like to know that I’m not the only person who notices, and I do need that little reminder with some that are subtle changes, that’s it’s not real. Like this thing: http://vimeo.com/34813864
2) I subscribe to Madison, and I was SUPER annoyed at their cover. Yes, they have a plus-size model on their cover, and they have the words “super sexy curves” – but the picture they’ve chosen doesn’t show any damn curves on her! She’s dressed in a way to hide them in a giant jacket! I didn’t even recognise her as an average sized woman! AAAAAH! Hey ladies, hide your sexy curves under giant black jackets. Thanks. >:[
loading...
I’m freaked out by the pictures of dogs – please tell me they weren’t forced into putting their heads under water with their eyes open,
loading...
The rest of the pics in this series show that they are just enthusiastic dogs chasing balls into water, and the photographer captured the moment when they stuck their heads under to try to grab the ball. The dogs appear to be having heaps of fun.
loading...
Mamamia, I wanted to congratulate you on your new PS stamp.
I am a qualified art therapist (visual processing is my area) and photographer and would like to explain the importance of the stamp. Unconciously we see an image and process it as real. Even if we are educated in “photoshop trickery”.
By creating a stamp- you have created a visual symbol that will combat the image on equal terms. By just writing “photoshopped image” the viewer would not process this information the same way. A BIG step forward. This is exactly why visuals on cigarette packets work more effectively than written warnings.
As an art therapist I have to constantly deal with women feeling depressed over magazine images. As a photographer I am constantly pressured to remold womens faces and bodies so they feel “acceptable!”
Yet the images of women from the 50s look so much more beautiful, well lit, and posed ( there was no major retouching then) instead of today’s current flooding of alien like, overly shiny, fake images! Bring back the classic days of beautiful portraiture! Maybe your PS stamp may start a trend.
loading...
That cover of Whitney is just mean.
Lana has great lips. Lucky her.
Kim looks great without all the make-up.
That pic of Bar and Rafa is a bit racy! Wonder how Leo feels about it!
loading...
Given he and Bar broke up forever ago, I’m sure he’ll live.
loading...
What is with all the grumpy pants comments about contributors head shots?? They’re not selling face cream are they?
loading...
What’s wrong with the J. Lo pose? Looks quite reasonable on the achievability scale to me . .
loading...
I totally agree! She looks like a person sitting her legs crossed. Most people do it everytime they sit on the floor. The photocaption reads a lot like sour grapes to me.
loading...
I agree too, doesn’t look that hard to acheive if you’re flexible.
loading...
I’m totally un-flexible (as in if I skip a couple of yoga classes I struggle to touch my toes) and I can do that.
loading...
I think the Barbies look great! Well as good as a Barbie can I guess
loading...
Maybe a PS should go onto the first picture of William and Kate. I’m sure he doesn’t have that much hair!!
loading...
Photo 14. Can you tell what’s missing?
Is it pubic hair? is that what you are refering to?
loading...
They’re referring to the fact that if her bikini sits that low on her hips, then surely her…um…bits should be sticking out (hint: not pubic hair).
loading...
no, it’s her vagina!! looks like nothing is there!!
loading...
I was going to say “Class” but that works too.
loading...
No surely you wouldn’t see her vagina even with the “swimming costume” that low. I just checked myself (through the pubic hair) and you wouldn’t see mine?!
loading...
I really love Viola Davis. I’ve only ever seenher in ‘Doubt’ and the single scene she had in that film was so powerful. I was crying right alongside her as if it were my son in that scene, and I don’t even have one. I can’t wait to see her in ‘The Help’ (when it comes on DVD, no cinema in our town.)
I, too, felt the little pang when seeing some of the covers and the stamp was a good reminder. Great idea.
Shame Mattel have the rights to the royal wedding, feels a little cheap to me.
loading...
is the stamp also going to appear on your contributer’s pics when they have been airbrushed? serious question, not being snarky… I remember reading people’s queries about photoshopped contributor pics and the response was that you don’t ask contributors to disclose if their pics are digitally enhanced. Seems a double standard to expect disclosure from other publications, when you’re not doing it either…
also – how do you know Jen Aniston’s boyfriend hasn’t been digitally altered? or the royal wedding pic? They escaped the stamp? Seems like its just guesswork.
I do like the idea, in theory… !
loading...
Hey Claire, good questions – Mia’s the best person to answer – she’s not available now, but she’ll be online later
loading...
Hey Clare M,
This is something I hadn’t even considered until recently. At the moment, we occasionally ask a contrib for a different shot if we notice the one they’ve submitted is too ‘shopped. In virtually all of these cases, it will be a PR shot of the contrib in question and they had no control over the ‘shopping.
But no, we’re not going to stamp our contribs (although we will continue to ask them for non-shopped shots). To us, this is about the images produced by media and advertising because they are the custodians of how women are portrayed – like it or not.
loading...
Do you not consider Mamamia media?
loading...
We don’t produce images ( except those we take around the office), we just republish them in the context of posts.
loading...
So by that logic you don’t have a problem with heavily airbrushed images on the cover of Cosmo, Cleo etc. since they are generally stock photo’s those mags don’t have a hand in producing?
loading...
The stamp is quite distracting to the picture. I like the idea, but would prefer to see it placed at the end of the caption. It doesn’t need to be on the photo itself.
loading...
I hear you. We’re open to different ways of doing it. We may also give your idea a whirl (which is how we used to do it).
loading...
Cheers
loading...
Without a context, as in – how well they match the picture only – the dolls look great. Much, much better than some Barbie’s/dolls I have seen of famous people. But in context – as replicas of Royalty – it’s tacky.
loading...
I think I like Barbie-Kate’s dress better than Real-Kate’s dress
loading...
What’s the point of a stamp if you’re just guessing? Anyone can do that. If an image features in an ad, magazine, online photospread etc. it’s been digitally altered. Easy.
Obviously those images have been altered, but as someone pointed out below, the dog pictures, Justin Theroux, even the royal barbie pics would have been digitally altered too. So does the stamp only apply when you believe an attractive female has been digitally altered? As we’ve seen from the ‘missing vulva’ article, Mamamia’s idea of what’s real and what’s a photoshop fail isn’t always right (or maybe you are right and my itty bitty bikini bottoms mean I’m Barbie-like down there).
Also what’s so crazy about J-Lo’s pose? I’m achieving that pose right now, and I’m no gymnast. Is it that you think she’s meant to be holding herself off the ground somehow, because the image doesn’t suggest that to me. It’s just a woman crossing her legs superimposed on a different background.
loading...
I just wanted to point out as someone who works at a women’s magazine that not all images are digitally altered, headshots for instance. I’m obviously not arguing that many are, that’s pretty well known, but just wanted to put it out there that it’s not always a given (sometimes it’s just great hair and makeup and magic lighting).
loading...
I’m not just talking airbrushing, but changing the colour of a background etc.
loading...
Hey Anonymous – thanks for the questions. Mia’s the best person to answer them – she’ll be online soon to do so.
loading...
Hard to work out who is saying what when everyone is Anonymous! Next time, just make up a name to make the thread easier to follow?
Thanks
Right, your questions.
This is not about changing the colour of dresses or backgrounds. This is about changing faces, skin, bodies and body parts in ways that are impossible to achieve except on a computer.
Skin without pores. Women with legs 5 foot long. Torsos carved into so internal organs wouldn’t fit inside them.
Like that.
loading...
My response about changing backgrounds etc. was in reply to someone who said that some images in magazines were not digitally altered, and my point was that even if the person in the photo hasn’t been retouched (very rare), 99 times out of 100 something it the photo has been digitally altered, whether that’s removing a cloud from the sky or making a red dress blue. I get that that isn’t the point you are trying to make, but I was responding to someone else.
Quite simply, if your going to put a stamp on some digitally altered pictures, and not others, then your stamp isn’t really about photoshop but about the use of it on pictures of attractive women (I can only assume you have no problem with it on men, as the Justin Theroux picture is just as ‘shopped as some of the images of females in the gallery). Which is fine, but putting a stamp that say’s photoshopped on some pictures, and not putting it on others that are clearly just as altered is confusing.
loading...
The Justin image should have been stamped. A mistake on our part.
loading...
Thank you for the PS stamp! Some people would have me be somehow unintelligent but I often can’t see when something has been photoshopped. It’s only come onto my radar since I got into MM. So thank you!
loading...
It’s a shame you highlight how distasteful the recreated images are then show them anyway. Why not just describe the situation rather than showing us.
With the PS stamp – why show the images? Seems that you are indirectly perpetuating ps’ing by publishing relevant images. If people didnt publish them then wouldn’t there be reduced sales/reduced ps’ing?
On this point too – do actors (or their reps) that pose for studio shots have any say in approving what images of them are published? Surprised that Meryl Streep would allow heavy alerations to her image.
loading...
LJs – why not just refuse to publish photoshopped images altogether?
Well, we have considered that.
But we’re not the image police. Some of the images that have been digitally altered are newsworthy and interesting to look at. Ultimately, we see the idea of running the stamp as a way not just to make a point but to help educate and remind women (and men!) that what we’re looking at – and often subconsciously comparing ourselves to – doesn’t exist in real life.
I can still appreciate looking at those images of Adele – it’s just nice to be reminded that they’re more like a painting than a photograph.
loading...
Do we really need a stamp to tell us images in glossy magazines are digitally altered? Seriously?
loading...
Hey Anonymous,
Well, we believe so, yes. Even if you’re aware in theory that images have been photoshopped, it’s easy to forget.
We thought we’d try it out. See the reaction.
loading...
I think the PS stamp is kind of … dumb. Sorry but seriously, I agree with Anon. Do we need to be hit over the head with this? We get it – images are digitally altered. Let’s move on and focus on other things. We can discuss body image surely without constantly talking about photoshop?
loading...
Hey Anna – I just don’t know if we CAN talk about body image without talking about Photoshop.
Does it not bother you that no images of actual people are ever portrayed in magazines or ads?
And that a generation of people will grow up having never seen a real person on a cover or a billboard?
The argument that it’s “just’ those industries and it’s ‘just’ glamour and escapism are common but disengenuous (I know you didn’t make them, I’m just explaining).
What ads and mags do are shape society’s views of what is normal and desirable. And if ‘normal’ and ‘desirable’ can only be achieved by a computer then……isn’t there something wrong with this picture? Literally?
loading...
Really? I mean honestly, it should be perfectly obvious just from glancing at most of those pictures that they aren’t entirely real. We see real people everyday, and we know that even the beautiful people don’t look like that.
And who are these people who ‘forget’ that images in magazines, ads etc. are altered. It’s common knowledge, and has been for well-over a decade. If people really need a stamp to tell them images in magazines, ads etc. are digitally altered, even after about 15 years of non-stop mentions of that fact, well, I despair.
loading...
Anon,
….and I despair that even the most beautiful, genetically gifted men and women in the world are still deemed ‘not good enough’ and in need of photoshop.
So what message does that send to the rest of us?
loading...
i do!
it is a reminder that i am looking at an altered image.
and no the dog one doesn’t need it, unless of course you are showing your pet dog, in which case you should gently explain that this image is altered and does not represent reality, and even though you are a handsome dog, it isn’t possible for you to look that good, because even THAT dog does not look that good.
loading...
That is the best comment I have seen on this blog EVER!
loading...
Rainbow I am going to show my dog that image and have that conversation with him. He will totes appreciate it.
loading...
LOVE the PS stamp. I KNOW that most images are photoshopped, but as I was flicking through those pics and felt a pang at how beautiful some of the women looked, that little PS stamp reminded me that it’s not real and I stopped myself from the mind spiral! Please keep it up. Very powerful – wish it was in every mag.
loading...
That’s exactly why we’re doing it. Because of that pang.
loading...
I agree, I think the stamp is a fantastic idea! its a great reminder that the images that we so often see are misleading. Keep it up!
loading...
Agree. And I think/hope a particularly helpful reminder for young and impressionable viewers.
loading...
love the stamp, it is a great idea. so jennifer’s BF is not photoshopped?? crap does he always look that good??? lucky jen
loading...
I personally feel that the ‘PS’ stamp is seriously overdoing it.
1. Surely your readers aren’t that oblivious and can decide for themselves whether something has been digitally airbrushed or not.
2. Furthermore, there is much more than just one airbrushing computer program out there – I’m sure not everyone uses Photoshop!
3. You might as well just put a stamp on everything because I’m sure that picture of the dog in the water has been digitally edited in someway, as has that picture of Jennifer Aniston’s new boyfriend.
loading...
It’s more a case of walking the walk. Our readers ARE pretty smart, but we ask other media to do us the courtesy so we should too.
As for the second point, I guess Photoshop has become the catch-all name for the act of digital manipulation in the same way Bandaid became the catch-all for Plaster and, in America, hoover became the verb named after the Vac brand.
As for the dog, I don’t think it has too much of an effect on our self esteem if Lassie has been retouched
This will be a work in progress I suspect
loading...
Alright… I get it, I guess. But I still kind of think that ‘digitally altered/enhanced’ is a better term to use. Maybe I’m just a geek that way.
I sort of just assumed that the stamp would be used for anything that was digitally enhanced as to make a point about how much of what appears in the media today has been edited (as opposed to it just being just a point about body image).
loading...
Rick, to me, “walking the walk” would also include disclosing when the pics run on this site, such as contributor headshots and the stock image shots, have been digitally altered!
What about the swimwear model shots in the MM Business Directory, as an example?
loading...
Hi Clare,
Businesses and advertisers are in control of their own images and the way they want to portray themselves.
That is their right and one we support.
As I said further up, we aren’t the image police, we’re just trying to do a little bit to help things along in our neck of the woods being editorial.
As for contributors’ headshots – I answered that further up the page.
loading...
Thanks for the responses Mia
These statements don’t add up:
“Businesses and advertisers are in control of their own images and the way they want to portray themselves. That is their right and one we support.”
however under the stamp you include advertisers:
“While we wish all magazine and advertisers would just tell us when they’re using Photoshop as per the Govt’s Voluntary Code Of Conduct, the reality is they don’t.”
Now, I’ve double checked and I don’t have my cranky pants on today – its just I support the theory behind your idea, but a stamp is just a gimmick if you’re not going to live by the same rules here with the stock images, headshots and advertising images….
loading...
That was me, not sure why I’ve come up as anon!
loading...
LOVE the photoshop stamp. Hopefully it catches on everywhere!
loading...
Your PS stamp will get a good workout as virtually every magazine editorial and ad is photoshopped.
loading...
So pretty much every single photo??!!!