I can’t quite get my head around why advertisers continue to use Photoshop and think the public won’t notice. Seriously how could we not notice the work done on the first picture in today’s gallery?
Also in the images that grabbed our attention this week – what is it that makes a tough man – or woman? It is the ability to swim though ice and mud? To run through fire? Because that’s what 6000 people were doing in England this week for the toughest man competition.
If shows of strength aren’t your thing – flick though the gallery for pictures of Gwyneth Paltrow in a crotch-split dress on the cover of Harper’s Bazaar, those Kardashian sisters… what have they done now? And many, many more
You ready?
British regulators banned this Loreal anti-ageing moisturiser ad featuring actress Rachel Weisz after it received complaints which said the image was misleading. (Click through for a more natural shot of Weisz)
Comments
30 Comments so far
loading...
Rachel doesn’t even need photoshop, she’s so gorgeous. But seriously she doesn’t look human in the first photo – what were they thinking??
loading...
I love Rachel Weisz, she’s ione of my favourite naturally beautiful women alive. But I didn’t even recognise her in this photo. WHY do they bother using a celebrity and then making them unrecognisable? She’s pushing 40, its ridiculous to present her with the skin of a 5 year old.
Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett (also in your images) are fine examples of gorgeous women ageing gracefully!
loading...
I love rachel weisz and I didn’t even realise that was her in the first (photoshopped) pic!
loading...
I know Angelina Jolie always looks really slim, but that pic of her is scary! She’s got that dangerous ‘lollypop’ look going on.
loading...
That’s what I thought too…really scary!
loading...
I can’t look at wrongful birth claims from any perspective other than a legal one because I am a lawyer.
I actually don’t believe it is outrageous for the parents to have started the wrongful birth claim, legally speaking because I don’t see it from a “you are basically saying if you had a choice you wouldn’t want your child, you awful person” perspective, it’s really a question of negligence on the part of the doctor which lead to this situation.
loading...
I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago and heard a live version of a song (can’t remember what it was now) and it was awful! Anyway, this got me thinking about the ‘evils of photoshopping’ in a whole new light.
In a way isn’t everything kind of photoshopped….
A lot of music is ‘photoshopped’ (hence why the live version can sometimes sound so shite!)
Books are ‘photoshopped’ (edited!)
Photos are photoshopped (well duh)
Hell I even ‘photoshop’ myself when I go out (foundation, tummy trimmer undies etc)…….
It made me think that the whole issue is kind of being blown out of proportion… I don’t freak out everytime I hear a song and despair that I can’t sing like that, I don’t cry every time i read a boook because I can’t write like that (well actually sometimes I do but that is another story), and I don’t binge and purge everytime I see a magazine because i don’t look like that. I am not a singer, not a writer and not a model and I am fine with that!
loading...
Okay, oddsocks, you might not binge and purge every time you see a magazine, but lots of young women and girls do.
If there were teenage girls committing suicide and connected to hospital drips because they were devastated that they couldn’t write a novel, perhaps we’d be up in arms about brilliant literature too…
Frankly it would never, ever happen, because we value a woman’s appearance more highly than we do her ability to create ideas and write them beautifully.
loading...
Fair point.
Your response seems quite aggressive. I was merely sharing a different way of looking at the whole photoshopping issue not trying to imply that it is not an important issue. Perhaps if I had come to this realisation (that most commercial things are photoshopped) I myself would not have suffered from an eating disorder as a teenager.
Maybe, instead of the constant outrage over photoshopped images we should simply be educating young people that photoshopping is everywhere. Everyone knows that books are edited, songs are digitally recorded etc and no one cares, yet for some reason we still seem to think that the images we see in the media are ‘real’….. instead of trying to remove photoshopping from the images why don’t we just make the whole process more transparent. Have information in every magazine about photoshopping, how it is done and why. Have fine print under photos to explain how the image has been altered….. spread the word that just like the words in the magazine have been ‘tidied up’ so have the models. I know if I looked at a photo of a bikini model and felt completely inadequete reading below that she had been photoshopped to remove skin rolls, increased tan, and made a larger breast size I would feel amused and get on with it.
Just an idea…… certainly not trying to make is seem like a non-issue.
loading...
I think it’s more to do with the fact of what these people are selling, Rachel was selling anti-ageing cream and it’s sort of misleading to photoshop out all of her beautiful laugh lines!
loading...
Oddsocks, I definitely see where you’re coming from, and I agree that some people, this site in particular, seems to over-react when it comes to Photoshopping. However, I think the difference between the photoshopping of images and advertising, and the ‘photoshopping’ of music and literature, is that the former is a gross misrepresentation of individuals’ images, etc. and something that is sometimes represented or viewed as a sort of ‘norm’ and subsequently aspired to by individuals in society. Literature and music (and movies) is a form of entertainment, and therefore doesn’t have the same masses endeavouring to be the same.
Another thought, we even ‘photoshop’/edit ourselves in speech and communication – if we’re one of those lucky enough to have a filter between our brains and mouths
Just my 5 cents in contribution to the ‘debate’.
Peace…xo
loading...
I think the sadest and most disturbing part of the photoshop changes is that these people (models, actresses, etc) make a living based on how they look, therefore they put a lot of time and effort into their appearance. These people are beautiful and then someone takes a pen and changes them to make them appear more beautiful???? While it gives ordinary people an unrealistic view of how they look, imagine what it does to their self esteem to know that yes your really great…… but you look better with bigger boobs, smaller thighs, smoother skin.
loading...
loved catching up with ferris again. as for photoshop…yeah, grr i’m sick of it. i understand it started to fix up say, a fly on your leg ruining an expensive photo shoot but it has gotten ridiculous. The model in teh white bikini is all distorted out of shape now. no wonder people think their bodies are far from perfect. great collection of weekly pics mammamia
loading...
oh , and the riot at the soccer in egypt…my goodness, what an awful thing. that stopped me in my tracks. i wonder if it is a footy match like we’d go to, then suddenly massive violence breaks out…are people there with kids? awful
loading...
God all those women look way better without the photoshopping. Especially Rachel Weiz, she’s gorgeous!
loading...
I really like these posts, but I have a real problem with the lack of credit for a lot of the photos. I’d love to see more of the hipster Disney Princesses, but there’s no mention of where the picture came from, who drew them, or anything to help someone find them.
I expect better from Mamamia – and I say that with love. You guys are great! Time to give credit where credit is due.
loading...
Delete
loading...
Hooray Mamamia! You mentioned sport! Woo hoo!
loading...
LOL, you must have missed our tennis chat the other day too. Shame.
loading...
1. I really don’t understand why certain ads are being singled out. There was a mascara ad with Taylor Swift not long ago that was banned, but it was no more photoshopped than any other mascara ad. And this ad is no more photoshopped than any other anti-aging ad. If the people doing the banning actually hope to acheive anything they can’t just randomly choose an ad here or there whilst not banning hundreds of similar ads.
2. The photoshopping done on the Victoria’s Secret model seems to be primarily just evening out skin tone, adding a tan, making her hair and make-up pop a little more. I think that’s what Mia called very minor photo-shop when talking about Deborah Hutton.
3. I understand Vanity Fair has a history of putting the women of color on the inside flap, but this year the 4 actresses on the cover are the biggest break-out stars by far, so obviously they are going to be on the cover.
4. Of course the Kardashian ad has been photoshopped. They photoshop their Christmas card, obviously an ad with them in is going to be photoshopped. But having seen Kim and Khloe in person, honestly Kim is a TINY little thing, like Kylie Minogue tiny, and Khloe is tall but not a big girl by any means. They haven’t changed their body shapes as much as some rather snarky commentators are suggesting.
5. The Harpers cover with Gwyneth is so striking. Beautiful layout.
6. I want to fly Japan and bring all those dogs home. The one on the bottom right looks just like my dog.
loading...
Take a close look at the photo of the Victoria Secret model, they have made her boobs bigger.
loading...
Hard to tell as they aren’t actual before and afters, but it looks like they’ve just added more of a shadow in her cleavage to make it appear larger. I googled a few pics of this model on the runway, and she had pretty amazing cleavage in non-photoshopped runway pics, so it could just be a case of different bikini tops getting different results.
loading...
I agree Anonymous, it’s hard to tell as they haven’t put the real before and after side by side. They may be similar poses but it’s quite hard (and frustrating) to see what has and has not been photoshopped.
It’s like comparing oranges and mandarins.
loading...
I think the Victoria’s secret model photos have been significantly changed.
Biggest part is the thighs. The girls look AMAZING in the original shots, and then in the retouched shots there thighs are about 3/4 the size. Look at the gap between each leg. That’s not a pose or the lighting, that is someone thinking it is necessary to cut of 25% of an already thing girl’s leg.
loading...
I think Rachel Weisz is so beautiful, and I don’t understand why people feel the need to photoshop her. She’s fine the way she is.
loading...
1) It worries me so much that I couldn’t pick the first image as photoshopped – I had to keep flicking from one to another to get it.
2) It’s sad that the women of colour are only on the inside flap of the mag cover.
3) It’s REALLY sad that the teen vogue cover has been photo shopped. Those poor girls.
4) Where’s Gwyneth Paltrow? I can’t find her… oh, there she is! Is she really that tiny?
5) I want to go in the tough guy competition! Looks like fun!
loading...
Given how little she eats (according to all the diets and detoxes she posts about on goop), I think she really is that tiny. But also look at her mum, Blythe Danner. She is well into her 60s and bird-like, so it’s in the genes too.
loading...
Gwyneth’s a bit of a foodie actually. Her cookbook is pretty awesome. She has an amazing body because she works out hard for it.
loading...
Gwyneth might -cook- amazing food (I have no doubt, many people who don’t eat love to cook and watch others eat), but she would not be tucking into a big ol’ bowl of spag bol. In fact (I can’t be bothered googling it) doesn’t G.Pal have something like osteoperosis from years of avoiding dairy…?
My guess? She eats very little, she works out very hard. The perfect recipe for Hollywood-skinny. And that’s her prerogative.
loading...
JosieY – it worries me too that you couldn’t pick the first image as photoshopped!