A Magazine That Finally Says No To Photoshop

A Magazine That Finally Says No To Photoshop

Verily magazine is doing something completely different than all of the other magazines out there. They have decided to use no Photoshop at all for the models in the magazine. Celebrating a person's flaws rather than taking them away is their intention. They believe this is what society wants to see and they may be correct. Even more impressive is their stance on using real women as models. 

In their November/December issue, they decided to use real women as models in a fashion spread called “Runway to Realway.” Looks from high fashion brands are showcased on real everyday people.

o-VERILY-570

Ashley Crouch of Verily states, “The unique features of women, whether crows feet, freckles, or a less-than-rock-hard body, are aspects that contribute to women's beauty and should be celebrated -- not shamed, changed or removed.”

They claim, “Whereas other magazines artificially alter images in Photoshop to achieve the so-called ideal body type or leave a maximum of three wrinkles, Verily never alters the body or face structure of the Verily models.”

We're interested in seeing how they do. They seem to have great support and it would be interesting to see if more magazines follow suit.

[Via Huffington Post]

Log in or register to post comments

54 Comments

still to be seen: a culture that says no to make up

Yeah, because we all know how color temp manipulation is giving women eating disorders.

Yes, let's have arbitrary laws against visual enhancements! A control society surely ends there.

CGI is different than photoshopping a magazine though. Iron Man doesn't pretend to be "reality." The characters aren't real. So that's not a great comparison. No one goes to see Iron man expecting reality.

You think the color doesn't effect the interpretation of a photo?

Remy Musser's picture

You're absolutely right, but every single movie is processed, retouched... and nobody ever complain about it.

Again, same reason.

How much retouching was going on in National Geographic back during the film days? They shot slide if I'm thinking correctly?

God forbid people wanting to see the models as they actually look with lines, flaws and the occasional cellulite dimple.

I don't use photoshop for my photos :P

Anyone who thinks modelling represents reality has obviously not been paying attention.

Do you use any post processing or just use the jpegs that the camera spits out? Not knocking your choice btw (everyone has their style) just curious...

I don't understand what's wrong with makeup or retouching. No one is telling people they HAVE TO wear makeup out and about. Women do it because they want to. If I were in a magazine, I'd want some retouching or makeup or whatever they do. Seeing a static picture of someone is different than interacting in real life. There are things about people I never noticed in person, that jump out in a photo.
Silly argument.

Laws?!? I didn't realize a private business choosing to do or not do something, somehow translated into a law being created by the government, voted on, and passed that would ban retouching and special effects throughout all media. Then, that would naturally lead to everyone being hooked to batteries from birth by squid robots.
You must be fun to date.

He said "we all know how color temp manipulation is giving women eating disorders."

WHo did? I didn't see that.

pati feroolz's picture

you must be funnier to date with your inability to get sarcasm

Of course it does. But that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - the use of image manipulation tools to present unrealistic body images to women, and the negative societal outcomes that flow from that - so don't be obtuse.

Now they said no Photoshop for the models, not for the entirety of the pictures. And I'd disagree that a minimmum skin cleaning is a must; in the end, it's up to the client. If the client chooses to keep their blemishes and scars (and I've witnessed this), more power to them.

Not necessarily want to. Often women are scared into doing so. There are certain attributes in western culture that encourage practices not for health's sake or for the benefit of the individual, but for beauty's sake. Look at things like earrings; not having your ears pierced is irregular and weird, especially after a certain age. There is no difference in hygiene between a woman not shaving her body and a man not shaving his, yet for a girl to walk about with booty shorts and unshaven legs takes a hell of a lot of confidence, because of the taboos we place on going outside of what is "the norm" or "ideal beauty". In a way, it's subliminal "have-to"'s.

I can't imagine that National Geographic just prints slides as they were shot. They discourage any sort of photo enhancement except traditional ones - such as dodging and burning ... but if you look at any National Geographic magazine you see the same top notch processing that you have always seen, way back in the days before digital.
As for not using photoshop for any of your photography, and I'm assuming you mean you use no photo processing at all, I assume you shoot in jpg. Most pros shoot in RAW format, to record every bit of information available, and to give us the most latitude in developing. RAW files are never printed as shot - they are more like negatives than finished photos.
Don't imagine that in the good old days the greats didn't pull every trick in the book to produce their finished photographs.

why is it a must?

I'll take obtuse over sarcastic and condescending any day.

I stick with basic raw adjustments at this point. Overall exposure, shadows, contrast, sharpness. No localized adjustments or advanced editing.

I'm not saying any of that is bad and I may move into some of that but I applaud a magazine seeking to present women and models close to how they actually look.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's movie Don Jon is not retouched. I saw many many flaws in terms of that, even Scarlett's tattoo, blurred out with make-up. I guess there was no budget for that, but still it would have been nice to clean it up a bit. Great movie tough.

Remy Musser's picture

Delivering RAW pics in not professional, even back in the film days we were working on the pictures.
Why would anyone deliver unfinished work?

No one gets my RAW images,ever.

mirza indigo's picture

nice one Kath....:)

i think it should be discussed between the model and the owner of the brand or whatever is being advertised (not necessarily sold) a model should have a say in the way he or she is represented and the owner of the brand should have a say in the way the brand is portrayed. personally i think scars should be worn proudly. They're part of who a person is and tell a story of what they've been through. As far as having flawless skin, there's always going to be opposing views. on one hand we're pushing an idea of what beauty is, and on the other hand some people want that fantasy of a perfect being. Scars and winkles are a real part of life and we should admire them not hide them.

i think it's more a matter of representing real people. im sure (by looking at some of the images on the website) that the pictures being used are definitely processed.

i shoot raw, but i set my camera to black and white so i can pay attention to tones and light as i shoot. i worry about the color later.

That is a really interesting idea. For an old timer like me I find that I can evaluate a photo in b&W much more easily than in colour. And of course, shooting RAW it's all still there when you get to post processing. I might try that! Thank you.

Pages