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.
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]
![[News] Elle Removes Clothing Via PhotoShop, And The Model In Question Is Not Exactly What I'd Call Happy](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/coco-rocha-elle-cover.jpg)
Surely this is a question of degrees... Photoshop is a tool and a very good one, albeit all too often over used. To forego the use of such a valuable tool seems to be a bit like 'cutting off your nose to spite you face'!
Better education is surely where we ought to be headed? Over the years we've seen various magazines, ad agencies and the like pushing a look that has been very detached from reality, a fantasy almost. That's not a bad thing, we all need things to aspire to. What has been lacking is a willingness on the part of those same agencies, models, actresses etc to acknowledge that the public face is often very different from the private face. It is they who are responsible for misguiding one or more generations of the young into believing that they can all have the look that's portrayed. They fed the myth, took the money and ran without thought for the effects of what it is they were doing.
The bottom line is that when we look at an image somewhere, we need to be able to recognize fantasy from reality, not always easy but still a lot easier than is often claimed.
To blame Photoshop and it's users is wrong. Blame those who use it to deceive for profit.
I'd go so far as to state that a level of blame must be shared by the public and people who readily consume the end product without question or judgement.
People need fantasy! We need to believe that we can improve. But we also need to be aware of our limitations...
Will this move by Verily make a difference? Not a dot.
I'm a full time retoucher and occasional photographer. I'm also a qualified psychotherapist and behavioual therapist and have, on a professional level, worked on both ends of this issue.
What you said! +1
The wording is very careful. They aren't altering models body or face structure. That's very commendable on many levels.
As for retouching (minus altering the shape of a model), what's wrong with that? Our job is to make people look good.
It isn't a black and white issue. I have different standards depending on what I'm doing. Head shots only get "anything that wouldn't be there tomorrow" removed. Portraits get a bit of gentling up of problems like wrinkles and such, but only in a way that de-emphasizes the issues, not removes them. Glamour, I take far more liberties with - we are trying for an ideal, not a real world photo, that's what Glamour is. Almost nobody walks around being glamorous 100% of the time, it's a treat. Just like going to the makeup artist and hairstylist before the shoot isn't an every day behaviour and is a treat, the photos afterwards are meant to make the person feel especially beautiful and desirable.
I'm certainly glad that Ansel Adams never did any post-capture processing of his photos [said in a sarcastic tone]. Anyone claiming that Photoshop masks reality should understand that photography does not capture reality. Photography, all photography, is artistic interpretation; it is artificial. There is a difference between a photographer using Photoshop to realize his or her vision of an image and overusing Photoshop to project an unrealizable version of human perfection.