Zoo real girls

Posted at 14:58 on 11 Jan 2012 by Pandora / Blake

Tags: Body positivity, Gender politics, Politics

A friend sneaked out this page from the Zoo magazine offices to show me. It's a spread from the magazine, over which an editor has stapled tracing paper with scribbled instructions for 'improving' the images. It's like an unholy mashup of the boss' red pen with those reality TV shows in which plastic surgeons draw on women's bodies, highlighting all the places they deviate from the 'ideal' unattainable without surgery or Photoshop.

The feature, called with brilliant irony 'Zoo real girls', shows off non-famous, conventionally pretty women who look a bit like conventionally pretty celebrities. Given the narrow range of physical appearance which conventional female prettiness describes - Caucasian, slender, youthful, fair, petite, delicate features, pert breasts, clear skin, etc - these 'sexylikeys' can't be that hard to find.

This 'real girl' has classic glamour model looks, and is already made up, studio lit, flatteringly photographed and touched up by a previous photo editor. The red pen commentary ranges from the unnecessary but predictable ('trim', 'flatten', 'curve') to the downright creepy ('reduce nipples' - whut? What's wrong with her nipples?). Other choice comments include 'remove all beauty spots' (real girls don't have moles or freckles, you know), instructions to fix a 'weird line' caused by a previous editor's nips and tucks (if you want it to look natural, you could, I don't know, stop trying to artificially alter the shape of a human body?) and the super-flattering 'tidy chicken skin'. Lovely!

Bet the resulting 'tidied up' images of herself make Ms Freimanis feel loads better about her appearance. Thank goodness lads' mads feature real girls from time to time - I mean we wouldn't want anyone to get unrealistic expectations about how our bodies should look.

Edit 23:56: In the shower, as this continued to bother me, I managed to articulate some of the things I found ickiest about it.

1. The sheer damn SHAMELESSNESS of it. Every body part scribbled on; not a single curve deemed acceptable. This isn't the result of a discerning, perfectionistic eye: it's a blanket rejection of natural body shape. One gets the impression that no matter how slender she'd have been to start with, the instructions would have been the same, running on an industry auto-pilot with no sense that there might be anything weird or wrong about this.

2. It's like your boss or teacher's marking. The red pen screams WRONG, INCORRECT. It makes me want to hastily do the corrections before I get a bad mark. But this is someone else's body we're talking about. We don't get to say that someone else's body is incorrect. That's fucked up.

Comments

Terrific post Pandora, but some woeful replies


"Guns don't kill people..." The same old drivel - what are you an eight year old? As Eddie Izzard pointed out: 'Having a gun helps..." if you decide to shoot someone


Re an audience of 17 old boys. Who by definition lack emotional maturity. A constant visual diet of airbrushed, nip and tucked, deforested female bodies engenders unrealistic expectations leading, sometimes, to negative reactions when presented with a real girl and damage to her self esteem.

And yes, I take pro photos and sometimes use Photoshop.

D

OH NO! WE MUST PROTECT THE GIRL'S SELF ESTEEM FOR SHE IS ONLY A GIRL!

I would like to ask you if you would feel so offended if the target audience were not teenage girls. What about middle-aged women?

Or are you offended because of the dishonest aspect of photo editing? What if flattering lighting is used to make a girl's body looks slimmer, rather than postprocessing? Is that acceptable? Is it "more photographically pure"?

I am a photographer and photo retouching artist. My target audience is not impressionable teenagers reading tasteless magazines, but rather paying clients, who want their headshots to present them in the best possible light. To this end, I use a combination of flattering light, short depth of field to accentuate the subject's focal point (e.g. eyes), and Photoshop.

Lots and lots of Photoshop.

I remove blemishes, change body shapes, removed fire extinguishers from photos that represent formative moments in people's lives, sometimes people ask me to make them look perfect.

My paying client gets to specify exactly what they want from their photograph.

From my point of view as a photographer, I do sometimes have to correct backdrop lighting, or smooth out lighting mistakes that came about because my time behind the lens for a given job was limited. Does that make me any less of a photographer?

Do you believe that a "true photo" is an honest document of something in reality? That Photoshop is the equivalent of artistic fraud?

Get a grip, people. We live in a post-post-modern era. Although the readership of these kinds of magazines are impressionable, they are also not stupid.

Guns don't kill people.

Photoshop does not cause low self esteem.

Further to my previous comment, I should mention that I am aware the target audience in this case is teenage boys, not teenage girls…

[...] know, if shiny and rather homogeneous tits are your thing, then Zoo magazine might be for you, but it’s not the place to find “real” girls. The term “real” is perhaps unfortunate, since skinny people aren’t exactly [...]

Although you should by no means give Zoo a free pass for this, I'd like to make it clear that magazines aimed at women - and most often run or edited by women - are the real driving force of the photoshop travesty.

The red pen sheet above is chickenfeed compared to what the editors for Vogue cut, copy, paste and diffuse on photos of already unrealistically proportioned models.

Zoo fail twice here, because they seem to be unaware of the fact that the "real women" angle they're going for should include the freckles, moles and "chicken skin" (seriously, WTF is that?) The perennial popularity of Reader's Wives proves that men like their women with "flaws" and all; because it makes them more accessible (to, um, objectify and fantasize about - sorry, nobody said we were perfect.)

I always like to write my initial comment without having read the comments, because often you get completely drawn away from the point you were trying to make in the first place!

I am actually kind of astonished to hear that so many of you - including Pandora - actually use photo editing software yourselves. That certainly creates a grey area of what's acceptable and what's not when you're manipulating reality.

In the comments it's clear you're all making a lot of assumptions about the intentions of the Zoo editor without actually hearing whether he has any blithe justification for the amount of retouching he called for (not saying that any of the explanations for retouching you guys have written are blithe - but it does seem to border on the "it's bad when he does it, but it's okay when I do it BECAUSE...")

I, of course, can write all this with a smug sense of self-satisfaction because the magazine I write for, Jacques, takes pride in shooting on film and not manipulating the images AT ALL. Perhaps it's easier with film (digital is VERY unflattering) but it does seem to set a rather dangerous precedent when you yourselves are on the same slippy slope of image manipulation.

Why can't we just leave the photos unedited?

Well Pandora,

I find one answer to this nonsense: What would I call e.g. my perfect spanking model, if there would be no imperfections? All said!

Don

...Is that a bit at the bottom that says 'tidy chicken skin'? What does that even mean?!
I'm not going to repeat your post, but I'd like to add how bad I feel bad for the girl who's photo has been leaked. Can you imagine how she'd feel if she sees these photos of herself, criticized and belittled? It's dreadful.

If I'd known how widely this would have been linked I might not have posted it. I just have to hope that she doesn't move in feminist/sex positive online circles. If she does stumble across this, I hope she reads the comments, too, because she genuinely looks like she's beautiful and sexy, with no need of any reshaping.

I'm in no way saying it's not consensual. I've had photo retouching done and I've done it for others; I've made drawings like this. That doesn't mean I like it. I can happily say to someone 'Sure retouch the photo all you like' but that doesn't mean I want to hear or see anyone say or write about my curves, weird lines, chicken skin, overly large nipples, beauty spots or whatever else.
I never suggested she hadn't agreed to the photo retouching. What I'm saying is that I believe that seeing someone point out and label your imperfections is going to lead to bad feelings about yourself and your body.

Thanks for such a considered response! Loads to think about here. It's obviously a grey area and not a straightforward issue at all, because you can draw a clear sliding scale between the sort of retouching you and I both consider acceptable and the sort of retouching which we both find abhorrent. On the other hand, think about it this way: if all this spec had said was "adjust saturation, remove beauty spots" would we have found it shocking? I don't think I would have. The shocking part for me is, first and foremost, the emphasis on body shape - and, less precisely, the immediate visual impact of the red pen being scribbled all over her. Perhaps if the spec had included 80 different colour correction instructions all in red pen it might have had the same immediate emotional shock factor, but as soon as you stopped to read it you'd have thought well, okay, fair enough. (I would have anyway).

I think we're agreed on the following basic principles:

- artistic photo adjustment is okay (colour correction etc)

- removal of temporary marks and blemishes which the model might not have had on another day is okay

You obviously draw the line in a different place - I wouldn't remove scars (I actually think scars can be really attractive!) and I don't smooth skin, but that's a political position for me, not an aesthetic one. I think I would have before I learned about gender politics, but now I think it's important to have aesthetically beautiful erotic imagery which includes models who have imperfect skin and scars, because it makes viewers (most people have imperfect skin and scars) feel more included and less alienated by your product. Well, I think so, anyway. It's the same principle on which I try to shoot a diverse range of body types.

So I suppose it's a question of whether it's more important to you that your product is visually beautiful and gorgeous and perfect, or whether you want to balance that with letting your viewers think that they could be in it, too. I'm certainly not saying that the latter has to be a priority for everyone, and your emphasis on visual beauty and aesthetic perfection is one of the strongest things about your brand.

Actually I'd love to see *more* kinky studios paying attention to things like light and colour - I much prefer porn to be beautiful and that's hard to achieve with a "point and click" approach. And I do believe that there's an extent to which a certain amount of e.g. blemish removal is *more* "feminist" - certainly more respectful and kind to your performers - than publishing unflattering or unkind photographs of them. That's why I reduce eye shadows - I work with busy, interesting, fabulous performers who are often short on sleep, and they're so energetic and lively in real life you don't notice the shadows that are picked up very clearly by a camera. As a producer, it is good (and feminist!) to present your models in a flattering, kind, respectful light, and that is clearly what you're setting out to do. (For instance, I agree entirely with your example of a mole casting a shadow in a high definition face shot - I'd take that out, too).

So there's this gulf between retouching for kindness' and beauty's sake, and what the Zoo editor is doing. As I said on twitter, I think it's about the difference between temporary vs permanent attributes (removing a zit is okay, shrinking someone's hips is not) and about harm reduction. Trying to change your body to a shape your frame can't attain can do permanent damage, physically and mentally. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about seeing eating disorders and body fascism as being on a different scale to zits.

Hwel; well-described process, thank you.

The distinction I find myself drawing at the philosophical level is that what yourself and Pandora do in post-production is make the model themselves look like themselves at their best.

What Zoo are doing is editing the person until they fit an externally imposed, and very narrow, definition of 'look good', which may bear little resemblence to the actual woman.

The egregiousness of this particular instance is that they have done the latter while headlining it 'real'.

Amma

Does it occur to you that this photo retouching may have been done with the model's consent?

I find it as disturbing as others that we as pathological humans seek to perfect the human body in ways it shouldn't be 'perfect', but what evidence do you have to suggest the person in question was not consenting?

Surely you are just projecting your own (or society's) body dysmorphia onto the object of this photo? Which is in itself a form of objectification?

Regards

M

I'm in no way saying it's not consensual. I've had photo retouching done and I've done it for others; I've made drawings like this. That doesn't mean I like it. I can happily say to someone 'Sure retouch the photo all you like' but that doesn't mean I want to hear or see anyone say or write about my curves, weird lines, chicken skin, overly large nipples, beauty spots or whatever else.
I never suggested she hadn't agreed to the photo retouching. What I'm saying is that I believe that seeing someone point out and label your imperfections is going to lead to bad feelings about yourself and your body.

Thanks for such a considered response! Loads to think about here. It's obviously a grey area and not a straightforward issue at all, because you can draw a clear sliding scale between the sort of retouching you and I both consider acceptable and the sort of retouching which we both find abhorrent. On the other hand, think about it this way: if all this spec had said was "adjust saturation, remove beauty spots" would we have found it shocking? I don't think I would have. The shocking part for me is, first and foremost, the emphasis on body shape - and, less precisely, the immediate visual impact of the red pen being scribbled all over her. Perhaps if the spec had included 80 different colour correction instructions all in red pen it might have had the same immediate emotional shock factor, but as soon as you stopped to read it you'd have thought well, okay, fair enough. (I would have anyway).

I think we're agreed on the following basic principles:

- artistic photo adjustment is okay (colour correction etc)

- removal of temporary marks and blemishes which the model might not have had on another day is okay

You obviously draw the line in a different place - I wouldn't remove scars (I actually think scars can be really attractive!) and I don't smooth skin, but that's a political position for me, not an aesthetic one. I think I would have before I learned about gender politics, but now I think it's important to have aesthetically beautiful erotic imagery which includes models who have imperfect skin and scars, because it makes viewers (most people have imperfect skin and scars) feel more included and less alienated by your product. Well, I think so, anyway. It's the same principle on which I try to shoot a diverse range of body types.

So I suppose it's a question of whether it's more important to you that your product is visually beautiful and gorgeous and perfect, or whether you want to balance that with letting your viewers think that they could be in it, too. I'm certainly not saying that the latter has to be a priority for everyone, and your emphasis on visual beauty and aesthetic perfection is one of the strongest things about your brand.

Actually I'd love to see *more* kinky studios paying attention to things like light and colour - I much prefer porn to be beautiful and that's hard to achieve with a "point and click" approach. And I do believe that there's an extent to which a certain amount of e.g. blemish removal is *more* "feminist" - certainly more respectful and kind to your performers - than publishing unflattering or unkind photographs of them. That's why I reduce eye shadows - I work with busy, interesting, fabulous performers who are often short on sleep, and they're so energetic and lively in real life you don't notice the shadows that are picked up very clearly by a camera. As a producer, it is good (and feminist!) to present your models in a flattering, kind, respectful light, and that is clearly what you're setting out to do. (For instance, I agree entirely with your example of a mole casting a shadow in a high definition face shot - I'd take that out, too).

So there's this gulf between retouching for kindness' and beauty's sake, and what the Zoo editor is doing. As I said on twitter, I think it's about the difference between temporary vs permanent attributes (removing a zit is okay, shrinking someone's hips is not) and about harm reduction. Trying to change your body to a shape your frame can't attain can do permanent damage, physically and mentally. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about seeing eating disorders and body fascism as being on a different scale to zits.

Hwel; well-described process, thank you.

The distinction I find myself drawing at the philosophical level is that what yourself and Pandora do in post-production is make the model themselves look like themselves at their best.

What Zoo are doing is editing the person until they fit an externally imposed, and very narrow, definition of 'look good', which may bear little resemblence to the actual woman.

The egregiousness of this particular instance is that they have done the latter while headlining it 'real'.

I wrestle with this. I completely agree with Pandora that the degree of "red pen" being taken to this poor girl's photos is appalling.

But.... I do retouch the photos for Restrained Elegance (and employ others to do so too). My directive is "make someone look like themselves on a good day, in really good light". A purist could justifiably claim that I'm doing the same thing as Zoo, just doing it a bit less. I feel bad about that.

I think there's a line, I believe I am one side of it, and Zoo is the other, but I can't see any objective way of deciding where it should be drawn.

ANY artistic choice made during the production of the final image affects how a person appears, and you can't make an image at all unless you make choices. Is it OK to use three point lighting and strip softboxes to light someone to make their skin look nice? Well, yes, because you have to light the photo somehow. If the image you want to create is smooth-skinned, that's no righter or wronger than using really harsh light to make the same model's skin look like tree bark.

There's no way to record a person as they "really" are in a still photo- lens choice, film stock, RAW processing settings, lighting, production design, angle, composition... retouching is just the last in a long line of ways the image has been shaped. There's no way out of this. Even an automatic scanning machine taking a high resolution scan of a person would be an artistic choice of how to record an image.

If one is creating an artistic image, for art's sake, I have to admit that I think anything the artist chooses to do is OK, so long as the model doesn't object and so long as they are up-front about it.

If one is creating an image purporting to be "documentary" or "real" journalism, I think one has a responsibility not to mislead. I think the Zoo retouch clearly drives through that rule with a twenty ton dump truck.

If one is creating an advert, I guess clients will demand something just the legal side of misleading, sadly.

For my own erotic art on RE, I have the following rules of thumb for myself:
1) I can do anything I like with primary colour correction. So things like colour temperature, tone curves, contrast, and other "development" settings are absolutely tools to be used to realise the image in my head as best I can.

2) I feel free to retouch any temporary marks the model may have. Mosquito bites, bruises, zits, dodgy skin on feet- basically anything that might not have been there had I shot her on a different day.

3) I will also use skin smoothing, gently, to even out effects like "corned beef legs" because those are usually due to inadequate heating in my studio- again if I was shooting the model on a warmer day, that wouldn't have been there.

4) I will only dodge and burn and do secondary colour corrections to areas that have a technical problem- if I can't hold the exposure in both highlights and shadows, for example, I might selectively lighten some areas, or tone down some hot spots.

5) I will not use any sort of reshaping or warp tools to change the model's shape. But I will throw away photos where I think the angle or pose looks awkward or ugly, so I'm still making artistic choices which might be tantamount to the same thing.

6) In cases where the model has extensive bad skin with lots of zits or dry patches, I will "nuke" the photo with an automated skin retoucher to give myself a much more even place to start the retouch from. I'm not entirely happy so doing, but personally I don't find lots of zits or eczema appealing and I can't bring myself to leave them in.

7) I routinely retouch BCG scars, despite the fact that nearly everyone has one.

8) Broadly speaking, I only retouch features like moles if I feel the lighting is giving undue prominance to it. If the backlight has caught her face at a funny angle and a small mole is casting a shadow like Mount Everest, I will retouch, because it feels "unfair" - if you met the person in real life you'd probably not even notice the same mole.

I *HOPE* that you would recognise any of our models if you met them in person, based on their RE photos. And I also hope that they like the way I have made them look. I guess the bottom line is that they have been paid to appear in my photos, and I'm trying to recreate the photos in my head that look a certain way, so I should be allowed to follow my own personal artistic vision for that?

I'm in no way saying it's not consensual. I've had photo retouching done and I've done it for others; I've made drawings like this. That doesn't mean I like it. I can happily say to someone 'Sure retouch the photo all you like' but that doesn't mean I want to hear or see anyone say or write about my curves, weird lines, chicken skin, overly large nipples, beauty spots or whatever else.
I never suggested she hadn't agreed to the photo retouching. What I'm saying is that I believe that seeing someone point out and label your imperfections is going to lead to bad feelings about yourself and your body.

Thanks for such a considered response! Loads to think about here. It's obviously a grey area and not a straightforward issue at all, because you can draw a clear sliding scale between the sort of retouching you and I both consider acceptable and the sort of retouching which we both find abhorrent. On the other hand, think about it this way: if all this spec had said was "adjust saturation, remove beauty spots" would we have found it shocking? I don't think I would have. The shocking part for me is, first and foremost, the emphasis on body shape - and, less precisely, the immediate visual impact of the red pen being scribbled all over her. Perhaps if the spec had included 80 different colour correction instructions all in red pen it might have had the same immediate emotional shock factor, but as soon as you stopped to read it you'd have thought well, okay, fair enough. (I would have anyway).

I think we're agreed on the following basic principles:

- artistic photo adjustment is okay (colour correction etc)

- removal of temporary marks and blemishes which the model might not have had on another day is okay

You obviously draw the line in a different place - I wouldn't remove scars (I actually think scars can be really attractive!) and I don't smooth skin, but that's a political position for me, not an aesthetic one. I think I would have before I learned about gender politics, but now I think it's important to have aesthetically beautiful erotic imagery which includes models who have imperfect skin and scars, because it makes viewers (most people have imperfect skin and scars) feel more included and less alienated by your product. Well, I think so, anyway. It's the same principle on which I try to shoot a diverse range of body types.

So I suppose it's a question of whether it's more important to you that your product is visually beautiful and gorgeous and perfect, or whether you want to balance that with letting your viewers think that they could be in it, too. I'm certainly not saying that the latter has to be a priority for everyone, and your emphasis on visual beauty and aesthetic perfection is one of the strongest things about your brand.

Actually I'd love to see *more* kinky studios paying attention to things like light and colour - I much prefer porn to be beautiful and that's hard to achieve with a "point and click" approach. And I do believe that there's an extent to which a certain amount of e.g. blemish removal is *more* "feminist" - certainly more respectful and kind to your performers - than publishing unflattering or unkind photographs of them. That's why I reduce eye shadows - I work with busy, interesting, fabulous performers who are often short on sleep, and they're so energetic and lively in real life you don't notice the shadows that are picked up very clearly by a camera. As a producer, it is good (and feminist!) to present your models in a flattering, kind, respectful light, and that is clearly what you're setting out to do. (For instance, I agree entirely with your example of a mole casting a shadow in a high definition face shot - I'd take that out, too).

So there's this gulf between retouching for kindness' and beauty's sake, and what the Zoo editor is doing. As I said on twitter, I think it's about the difference between temporary vs permanent attributes (removing a zit is okay, shrinking someone's hips is not) and about harm reduction. Trying to change your body to a shape your frame can't attain can do permanent damage, physically and mentally. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about seeing eating disorders and body fascism as being on a different scale to zits.

Hwel; well-described process, thank you.

The distinction I find myself drawing at the philosophical level is that what yourself and Pandora do in post-production is make the model themselves look like themselves at their best.

What Zoo are doing is editing the person until they fit an externally imposed, and very narrow, definition of 'look good', which may bear little resemblence to the actual woman.

The egregiousness of this particular instance is that they have done the latter while headlining it 'real'.

My wife has curves, she's pair shaped, cellulite on her arse and legs, her breasts have seen more youthful days, and her nipples are not uniform in shape, but you know what.... to me she's bloody gorgeous.

"Actual naked women – with no retouching. Lads’ mags would instantly be put out of business."

If those attracted to the female of the species were truly that shallow that they could only find an edited picture of a woman attractive then we'd have died out long ago. This simply isn't true. Normal people find attractiveness in all shapes and forms and if the press would only try then maybe we could dispel this ridiculous assumption that you're only attractive if your perfect.

Do you know what's scary? That for the editor it's probably entirely run of the mill.

The really depressing thing to me is that not only is this run of the mill for Zoo, I expect exactly the same thing happens in the offices of men's sports/fitness magazines and gay porn. Since I started following male/male blogs I've been noticing the extent to which all the men posted as "hot" have similarly unattainably idealised bodies.

So it's not quite as gendered as people might think. Interesting that so far, female gaze indie porn producers seem to be the only industry voice presenting a diverse range of female AND male bodies as sexy and desirable.

I actually can't tell whether the weird line is just the angle of her body, or an attempt by a previous photo retoucher to make her armpit have a more attractive curve. I'd assumed the latter, but maybe not.

I would expect it's the fold at the front of her armpit. The way she's holding that arm the fold could very well extend part way round it. Essentially it's caused by the interaction of the deltoid and bicep muscles. I think that a similar line is visible in your photo for triple-a to the right.

What this looks like to me is a case of wanting to look like you're doing your job. An editor who looked at the original photo and said "Okay, just clean this bit." would be afraid people thought he wasn't paying enough attention to this task, so to prove that he is doing his job he overdoes it.

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I mean, imagine being seen in public with your own unedited nipples! The horror!

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

"Weird Line" ...um....its called real anatomy? Hello?

This is horrible :|

I actually can't tell whether the weird line is just the angle of her body, or an attempt by a previous photo retoucher to make her armpit have a more attractive curve. I'd assumed the latter, but maybe not.

I would expect it's the fold at the front of her armpit. The way she's holding that arm the fold could very well extend part way round it. Essentially it's caused by the interaction of the deltoid and bicep muscles. I think that a similar line is visible in your photo for triple-a to the right.

What this looks like to me is a case of wanting to look like you're doing your job. An editor who looked at the original photo and said "Okay, just clean this bit." would be afraid people thought he wasn't paying enough attention to this task, so to prove that he is doing his job he overdoes it.

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I mean, imagine being seen in public with your own unedited nipples! The horror!

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

This is not scary or shocking! Look around you - ALL fashion shoots are retouched, the glossier, the more so. If I were the model I'd feel glad someone paid such careful attention to detail as to "reduce my nipples" if appropriate so I didn't go out naked in a magazine looking less than perfect - I mean, that would REALLY shock people. Actual naked women - with no retouching. Lads' mags would instantly be put out of business.

I would expect it's the fold at the front of her armpit. The way she's holding that arm the fold could very well extend part way round it. Essentially it's caused by the interaction of the deltoid and bicep muscles. I think that a similar line is visible in your photo for triple-a to the right.

What this looks like to me is a case of wanting to look like you're doing your job. An editor who looked at the original photo and said "Okay, just clean this bit." would be afraid people thought he wasn't paying enough attention to this task, so to prove that he is doing his job he overdoes it.

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I mean, imagine being seen in public with your own unedited nipples! The horror!

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I hardly dare admit to this but my 'day job' is freelance graphic design and I mostly work in Adobe Creative Suite.
Exactly the kind of work just described.
It is very run of the mill. Every photograph in every magazine is worked on in some way.
I can't really complain as it keeps me in employment, but I don't approve of what I am asked to do a lot of the time.
No wonder we all have body issues when the pictures we see are of artificially created people.
Fred.

You're being ironic but really - being photographed for a magazine with unedited, uncolorbalanced, patchy, blotchy skin, all your moles on show, cellulite everywhere, a few lines and shadows that show you may have had a larger meal the night before... no one wants that..!

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

You don't enjoy retouching? I do :) I'm also a graphic & digital designer by day, freelance web designer by night. I don't get to retouch much anymore, but it's amazing how you can make a good picture look beyond amazing. It's a shame when they over-retouch, making skin look very obviously plastic. That shouldn't get signed off - but what Zoo are doing is perfectly normal; they ask "Real girls" aka, non-models, to send pictures in for their spread. There's a reason they're not models. And so to look like one, will need a lot more retouching than regular models.

This doesn't create body issues - rather, ignorance does. It's like saying guns kill people. (People with guns kill people.) If you have an issue with a picture of yourself, surely you'd photoshop it rather than have to diet! It's far more fun. I think that the message we should send out to non-creatives who have no idea that 99%+ of images in the public domain are retouched in some way is just that - educate them, let them know it's all photoshop-surgery, and give them a chance to do it themselves if they feel so bad about their own photos. :D

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

I'm a graphic designer as well Fred, and I've done my own share of retouching. I think there's a line and this goes way beyond it. I know that as soon as one draws a line, you open yourself to others saying it's fine to draw one in a different place, but I've put quite lot of thought into this when considering how to produce porn in a sex positive, feminist way, and I definitely have a line.

My line is: In general, I'll edit colour, contrast, levels in a photograph for better visual impact, but I won't change people's skin or hair colour. I'll adjust saturation in most contexts, but not to make a spanked bottom look redder. I'll remove bug bites/spots/pimples which are disproportionately obvious in a photograph and draw the eye more than they would in real life, and I'll lessen bags under a model's eyes, but that's it. I won't smooth skin tone, remove pores, wrinkles or cellulite, or change the shape of a model's body, ever.

My take on airbrushing was clarified by talking to Ariel Anderssen about this, who put it brilliantly: it's about making the photograph true to life. Photography picks up details the eye doesn't, and a still image comes across differently to when someone's moving. The aim is to flatter the model: that's what make up, good lighting and good photography are about, and I don't object to those either.

Basically I think minimal retouching to make the model look as gorgeous in the photo as they do in real life is okay. But making someone look DIFFERENT, especially thinner, younger or more smooth-skinned, isn't. Not to me, anyway.

If the picture is genuinely unflattering,
a) That's not lack of retouching, that's bad photography;
b) The magazine could always not use it.

Personally, I make a living publishing sexy photos of myself including lines, wrinkles, food belly, moles, cellulite and uneven skintone. Newsflash: people think I'm sexy anyway. You should try it sometime, it's a good feeling :)

It's a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire ;)

And in response to your comment to Fred - I totally agree with you about photography: it's the photographer's/art director's/stylist's/model's job to make the picture look good with minimal retouching. But Zoo's real women just aren't going to get thousand-£ shoots and remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it's seventeen-year-old boys. Their ideal woman is a slightly-chavvy-looking, over-tanned, slightly chubby / not bony, blonde, imagine-they-have-an-Essex-or-Scouse-accent and go to Malia with their girlfriends on holiday type specimens you see in all these mags and page 3.

On another note, one of the toilets in my house is completely wallpapered in cutouts from the Sunday Sport. The feature girls are retouched so much they may as well stick a picture of Barbie in there; the ad girls are very not retouched, a lot because they cater to certain fetishes. But, ultimately, they all fit the description of the above...

Okay, few different things here.

"It’s a good feeling when you actually look good and have nice skin from your diet and feel comfortable. Not when you just accept who you are without making an effort to look how you desire"

Firstly, fuck that noise. It's completely okay to not conform to conventional beauty standards and still feel good about your body and yourself. People with bad skin are allowed to have self esteem.

Secondly, you're making a lot of assumptions here. I eat well, I do yoga and I lift weights. I happen to like my curves. Putting effort into my appearance doesn't have to mean making myself look like a model in Zoo magazine.

"remember, their target market is not tasteful female burlesque enthusiasts with a penchant for art; it’s seventeen-year-old boys."

...who are just as capable of finding a range of bodies attractive, no matter what they're told by mass media, thankyou very much.

Finally, you're confusing "normal" with "good". Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it's okay, or that we can't do better.

Cheap Pills online for sale here are

buccinator (muscle) adrenal crisis Frankfort cholescintigraphy boldin lateral malleolus capsula articularis cricothyroidea fasciculus interfascicularis common flexor sheath (of hand) HГјfner equation [url="http://www.tee-2-green.com/aties/costm"]pfid[/url] amaurosis generalized eruptive histiocytoma cutch

For those who wanted to know, Chicken Skin is a common term for Keratosis pilaris, also known as tiny red spots where you should have hairs growing. Chances are you've all seen it, nearly half the population have at least a small area of it. It's not a problem but a massive industry has grown out of treating it, no doubt fuelled by these same magazines.

Idealisation is a common feature of imagery since time immemorial. Botticelli's Venus is obviously an idealisation, and so is Raphael's La Fornarina, and so on.

I really don't see anything wrong with modern photographers or art directors trying to improve reality: all painters do it, so why should photographers be "guilty" of a time-honoured practice?

No picture can ever accurately represent reality. Reality is three-dimensional, has texture, smell, resilience, hardness, softness, itchiness, etc. An image is just an image, and it's never true to life. Take, for example, the amateur pictures taken with a cell-phone camera: are they in any sense "truer" than photoshopped images of professionally photographed models? I don't think so: bad quality pictures are as much a distortion of reality as artificially perfect ones. In either case, we know that the people depicted in them are not "really" like that. Everybody should be bright enough to realise that skin is not made out of flesh-coloured latex, and that every depiction of beauty has been shot and processed to maximise the sensation of smoothness and flawlessness.

Even Pandora, or her photographer, will choose at least the lighting of a shoot. Natural light? Strobes? Tungsten? Does that count as distorting rreality? if not, why not?

Further to my previous comment, I should mention that I am aware the target audience in this case is teenage boys, not teenage girls…

Add a comment

Post as:

(or log in to post with your own username)

I'm fighting porn censorship - support me on Patreon

Browse archive

2012

PSA »

Find Pandora online

Feminist porn

Spanking porn

Spanking blogs

Sex and Politics blogs

Toplists & directories