Victoria's Secret has been in the news quite a bit for pushing Photoshop too far. Yesterday, on their Facebook page, they promoted their 'Body by Victoria' line and uploaded this image (within the article) to go along with it. Immediately, the public reacted in outrage about how they were pushing Photoshop too far and it eclipsed the discussion of the product itself. What are your thoughts, Did they abuse Photoshop again or is it natural? Before deciding, check out these reasons why they may not be in the wrong this time.
Though V.S. has had their fair share of negative coverage of going too far with Photoshop, you can't blame the public for reacting the same way after seeing this image.
However, we took a look into it and we realized that outside of the regular retouching they usually do, they may not have morphed her body into something it wasn't. The public's reaction is based on her body size and not the skin work itself.
The model's name is Lais Ribeiro. After taking a look at a few of her runway photos below, she does appear to be the same proportions as the image in question showcases.
Do you still feel that Victoria's Secret went too far or do you think they really didn't modify her body in comparison to her natural proportions and dimensions?
To check out the discussion, that is still going on strong, click on the image below. Before you do, let us know your thoughts in the comments below. We're curious on where you stand.
judging by the runway photos, I think she is just painfully skinny....
I'm not really in favor of overusing photoshop in product photography, but again, my tolerance of photoshop usage varies from product to product. The very simple question one should be asking here, is Victoria's Secret selling the lingerie or the model? To me, I don't see anything wrong with the core product in the image, I don't care if they start using mannequins for more plasticy look as long as they are not modifying the core product in way that it may misguide the consumer.
Also, I should mention, as a photographer, I'm not really in favor of image in question here... however, it doesn't upset me enough to bring out the pitchforks & torches. BUT, the level of rage against this image will be varied based on the kind of photographer you are, if you're purist, journalism-photography favoring photog then you're going to be enraged the most. If you're fashion photographer, you'll understand and probably be inclined toward the gloss, plastic look of the shot and be be enraged the least in the mob.
i thought the image looked good to me. didnt seem out of place at all
Found here in a very similar pose without crossed arms. When measuring her eyes to scale between those pictures and than measuring her thinnest part on the waste area you have 139 vs 125 mind you the 125 is measured skinniest part that is visible in photo with crossed arms and the 139 at skinniest part in the photo without crossed arms. But yes she is painfully skinny. If I did my scale count right to real world numbers her waist is around 14-17cm depending on the picture I use but that is taking assumption of size of eyes. But comparison between the two she is about 10% skinner in the victorias secret picture so might not done much and could be also because of angle of stance towards the camera that change it. BUT it looks like a heavily photoshopped image because she has her arms crossed over the stomach so a bad choice of photo IMO making it look like she really is photoshopped even if she might not be at all (at least not reduced waist size)
That's some crazy forensic analysis. You should go work for the CIA or something :)
Not really comparable. The hips are at more of an angle, making them appear broader. We also don't know what lens was used in either photo or whether the photo you linked to was itself altered.
The only solution is for somebody (me) to find her and measure her. E eu falo Portugues, entaõ tenho um vantagem nesta situação, sabe?
I too took the same approach with this image doing a comparison as best as possible. There is no question they liquified her and shrunk her. But these ads are not for OUR consumption, they've been made for 20'somsthings envisioning themselves looking THAT HOT too.
Technical score is LOW on this edit (when compared to earlier images).
But she's gonna sell some undies !
Not really sure about this one. Looks like its her natural body. Some people have that kinda structure plus she is really skinny. Hmm... Shot some similar runway photos ones, but those models where nothing near this skinny.
I invented a new word - photoshopography - trade mark pending
Totally Photoshopped - She has no PORES!
Did you really need to show the same image 3 times?
Ultimately this image not really successful. She is quite thin, and in this image it looks overly exaggerated. She is thin enough (read way too thin!!!) and the Art Director should have picked up on this, thus avoiding the inevitable controversy. You'd think VS would have learned this by now. I think it's a case of choosing the wrong image.
When I first saw this I was confident that they had liquified her abdomen. But after seeing the other photos, it is probably just exaggerated by the part of her arm that hides the side of her abdomen. I remember a time when Victoria's Secret models were a bit more on the voluptuous side. They seem to be getting skinnier and skinnier. If we are wondering if a model has been over-retouched and it turns out she is just an unhealthy weight, it's time to look at the modeling industry and our choices for hiring models.
nah that´s ok.. it´s pretty close to reality.... http://www.issues.cc/uploads/15834496218.jpg
It's fine, she's a very tiny-waisted girl, people need to get over it...and photoshop, there are rarely any photos that aren't adjusted, every image of a celebrity on a "health" magazine or other mag cover is distorted to make them look younger, healthier...every male actor on a "Men's Health" or other cover has him waist shrunk, biceps stretched etc., it's not just the women.
well i guess everyone who comes to fstoppers knows that.. no need for telling the obvious. :)
but that it is that way .. does not mean it is good that way.
japanese always killed whales and continue to do so.. get over it... ignore it.
elphants killed for their ivory.. why bother it happens for a few hundred years.. lets get over it.... ignore it.
if we don´t voice our opinions nothing will change. that´s for sure.
I think the image is retouched just fine..but I think the problem people are having with the image is what it is conveying. She is obviously a way skinny model and it is upsetting people regardless of the Photoshop work.
My opinion is that the upper photo was shot with a completely wrong light setup and that it was underexposed in RAW. They corrected the exposure in whatever software they used but they didn't do a good job. They also used to much Dodge + Burn.
This touch up was done well. The only question that I had was in the torso area, but even that was cleared up with the runway photos that were provided. Looks good.
Also need to consider what lens this was shot on, remember some lenses distort the human body, so because she is really skinny in real life the lens might make her look even more skinny.
it looks absolute unrealistic... for me it doesnt matter if its photoshop or not... when its not, come on choose another angle or tell her that she must move her hip or wathever. but at the first look i say its photoshop. shame on this picture really, nobody out there like so skinny people... whats up with this trend?!
I think if they are OK with how her body looks then they should not have done any photoshopping to her shape. They have casting for that - to find the model with the right waist, hip, legs or breasts size to fit that particular product you're selling.
Russell James (the photographer) is a brilliant photographer... that's all i want to add.
Not sure. She looks extremely skinny on the runway. But still, is that healthy?