The well-known underwear and lingerie company is at it again with its Photoshopping ways. Victoria's Secret has a long history of Photoshopping their models, but this time, have they gone too far with an editing job that's not just unnecessary, but very poorly executed as well? Check it out for yourself!
The photo, which was originally posted on September 25th, was used to promote their "cheeky" underwear. The model is depicted with her back to the camera, wearing nothing but the underwear. The only problem is the Photoshopping done to the model's thighs and butt remove much of her "cheeks." Here's the photo in question:
Victoria's Secret allegedly Photoshopped a model's "cheeks" and thighs into non-existence.
Some are offended by Victoria's Secret's insistence on Photoshopping their models, while others are just amused by how poorly the job was executed. This latest Photoshopping job comes on the heels of other companies being praised for their lack of using any alteration. ESPN the Magazine runs a body issue that highlights how incredible the human body is in peak form, for example. Aerie has come out saying they will no longer alter any of their models. Why does Victoria's Secret feel they must take such drastic measures to promote their underwear?
What's your take on Victoria's Secret's latest photo? Join the discussion in the comments below!
[via Mashable and Business Insider]
Yes and no… it's hard to say for sure that her left cheek disappeared in Photoshop. But it is badly retouched because she either had no left cheek on the raw file and the retoucher should have created one to make it look more flattering and "natural", or she had a left cheek, but the retoucher decided to remove it for some mysterious reasons. But in both cases it looks bad and something could have been done about it.
I get your point, but let's be real here. The outrage is mostly about unrealistic beauty standards and, as you say 'the retoucher should have created one to make it look more flattering and "natural,"' that's literally the biggest issue here. Whether she was 200 pounds and they slimmed her down, or she didn't have a left butt cheek and they'd add one, people would still be outraged by it. Maybe that's what her butt really looks like, but adding something that isn't in the photo is only more reason for extremely sensitive individuals to cause online riots over things that really don't matter.
Until till you get the original to compare you can't say for certain. I have no doubts to say they are still altering their models (we always will). I wills say tho very suspect and quite hilarious. I just chuckled and I'll move on.
Ye gods. I had to sign in to look at this article? What's NSFW about it? Puritanical much?
copy - past - transform - invert horizontally +)
Dat moment, when you make better job than Victorias Secrets retoucher.. :D
hehe =)
Then people would have complained that they set unacheivable standards of symetry..
hehe +) i made it for fun... so nothing gonna happen then...
Wow...there's gotta be some Photoshopping going on here. She has like...zero ass on her. Not too flattering for "cheeky" underwear.
Lol, I always find it interesting how the editors miss stuff like this.
I'm not so sure they don't do this stuff on purpose, look at all the publicity they get whenever some photoshopping thing pops up and speads on social media
Let's hope it is the case… but still I wouldn't like to be in the retoucher's shoes… It probably doesn't help building a solid reputation.
Interesting I guess from a 'distract-me-from-work-for-a-minute' kind of way. But who really cares?
Oops lol.
They need to fire this art director. How could you let that get to print. Crazy!
The left arm also looks rather questionable...
Pretty noticeable. However, if they were going to do anything, they should have either used a model that's done a lot of squats or added some because this girl is definitely lacking.
I have to admit it took me a moment to realize what was wrong with the photo. I knew something was not quite right, but I didn't notice the blatant lack of a body part in the image for a little bit.
I remember seeing a BTS video with Russell James shooting for them a few years ago. He was running around barefoot in the studio. I was surprised that for most of their looks they were using ambient light (there was a big garage door/window in the studio and he had a Canon 1Dsomething (integrated grip) with 24-70L (I think).
The only thing connected to the camera was a tether USB cable which ran to 2 iMac's with people editing/touching them up on the fly, so it would be probably be a big change to their workflow to not do much retouching. From what things looked liked in the video, vs. the final product, there is a lot of retouching going on for more than just the models (backgrounds, lighting, etc.).
I know, only a photographer would be looking at process and gear with a video of some of the most beautiful girls in the world in their underwear.
This is what happens when you shoot 14 bit uncompressed raw :P
Needless to say that this has been liquified very badly.
Just take a look at the inner left side of the supposed to be there asscheek.
Look at the straightness and the extreme angles of her outline.
Look at the shadow cast by it.
Not matching.
And no, no matter how skinny ( she's not even close to Victoria's Secret skinny standards this model ) she could ever be, the ass-cheek doesn't disappear on its own :D
To parody Sir Mix A Lot: "Baby Don't Got Back"