What Unretouched Photos From Victoria Secret Look Like

What Unretouched Photos From Victoria Secret Look Like

Victoria Secret, the company famous for selling underwear, lingerie, and overall sex appeal, is also notable for their amazing models. By the time you see the images from their catalog or campaigns, they are always retouched. Do you ever wonder what the shots look like before retouching? Here are a set of unretouched photos of V.S. Angel, Doutzen Kroes, from a recent shoot. 

Victoria Secret released these shots on accident in a public area of the website.

These images were posted to a public area of the VS Web site (apparently in error). They come from the forthcoming September catalog, which explains why retouched versions do not yet exist for a side-by-side comparison. They were shot around July 21 in Turks and Caicos. Even without retouched images to compare, the raw shots are still interesting to look at. -Jezebel

Although the final shots are not released, here's an idea of what you can expect them to resemble.

How do you feel about the shots before retouching?

[Via The Fashion Spot via Jezebel]

Log in or register to post comments

153 Comments

Philipp Blum's picture

I find the pictures to be much more interesting than retouched ones, here there is something to "explore" while looking at them, whilst the retouched ones are "all the same".. I think they should publish them as they are. :)

Fabian Pourmand's picture

and show stretch marks! That wont happen lol

Ashkan Ahmadi's picture

what's wrong with stretch marks? i'd rather look at a natural skin with stretch marks than a skin that looks like plastic and fake.

Matthew Guss's picture

V.S. is not selling skin . . . they don't want you to even give a thought to the skin. Any "flaw" brings attention away from the product and back towards the model's skin. Making potential buyer's think about their skin.

Clyde's picture

 But posing in super seductive positions with your legs open doesn't draw attention away from the product?

Alicia's picture

Not really, no. Think of it from a marketing perspective. The majority of consumers looking at these products are looking at them because they're considering buying some sort of swimwear for themselves (or as a gift for a female friend/sister/whatever), right? Okay. So what does a woman think about when she's picking out said swimwear? Could be a number of things; How sexy she looks, if it's modest, if the colors work for her, the shape, the cut, if she'll feel confident wearing it, etc etc. When you're a young woman looking for a bikini that will make you feel sexy and confident, doesn't it make sense that you'd want to see imagery that displays the product as such? I know I would. Those poses help the product sell.

Caleb Kerr's picture

Think of a retouched model kind of like shooting a product on a white background. White backgrounds are used to take away all distraction from the product itself and focus attention. Similarly, VS retouches stretch marks and folds because they distract from the two things they want the viewer to do: look at the bathing suit, and feel excitement that if they get the suit they'll look (and feel) awesome. These aren't photos to put on your mantle at home. You have no reason to remove grandma's wrinkles that give her character. But she's also not selling a swimsuit.

RIPamandabynes's picture

Ashkan Ahmadi, stretch marks aren't "natural", if you were truly natural you would eat fruits and veggies only and thus wouldn't have any weight loss marks to begin with. The angels are not perfect, understand they have to lose weight to keep their jobs.

misskaigen's picture

Stretch marks are perfectly natural. I am a 20 year old girl who has had stretch marks on my boobs and the insides of my thighs since I hit puberty. I have never lost a substantial amount of weight to earn these stretch marks. Stretch marks don't ONLY come from losing weight. They come from your body growing. We are women. We aren't born with curves and I certainly was a bean pole for a long time as a young girl. Curves develop when we become women, and they don't happen to everyone. It also has to do with genetics, obviously.
These women are naturally beautiful, stretch marks and all.

Maria's picture

Same for me Miss Kaigen! I was really skinny and started to develop. I still am skinny but I have hips and boobs. Women's skin is also 25% thinner than a man's so it's more likely to get stretch marks. AND we develop differently.

Deleted Account's picture

also, to get more off topic and for the sake of having fun, antagonistic, internet fights, it isn't natural to only eat fruits and veggies, humans are omnivores as we need proteins, and as far as i know, meats have proteins that you cannot easily find elsewhere

Matthew Guss's picture

It's called advertisement . . . welcome to the world of commercial photography ;)

V.S. dose not want you (the viewer) to "explore". They want you to look at the product being sold . . . and not for one split second question how it may look on you in a negative light . . . e.g.: "O but I have that one stretch mark I don't like...maybe I should get a less skimpy suit from someone else." or "I like that bikini but, I think the bottom is kind of small, I can see her bikini rash...I don't want to show everyone in public my area.".

V.S. simply wants potential buyers to appreciate the design of the suit, and not second guess the purchase of said suit.

Esmertina Bicklesnit's picture

Point taken.  If you're selling a product that doesn't look good on anybody, you have to disguise how unflattering they are, and that even supermodels wear panties under the bottoms because they are too skimpy.  And then count on the fact that most people won't bother to return the swimsuit they never wear because it looks awful on them.  That's just good business right?

DELANO's picture

They don't wear panties under the bottoms because they are too skimpy. It's for not showing any unwanted lines  and for easy changing of the suits when you're on location. Instead of walking back to a production trailer everytime. Also for hygienic reasons sometimes, because the stylist might want to try the sme suit on another model..

Rachel L. Hardy's picture

The panties also provide a smoother look.

Catherine's picture

P.S. Her boobs aren't all that big! Yet Heidi Klum on Project Runway said she is so used to seeing boobs in one episode. I am not saying it's bad that she doesn't have an extremely large chest or that she is flat chested, but it's not like they are huge and what not....this is why i really dislike Victoria's secret.

Patrick C N Wong's picture

how can the shadow be so bright. Looks like it was shot in the middle of the day and there doesn't seem having any sign of a reflector

Tanja Schulte's picture

why do you think there is no reflector?
the beach will act like a BIG reflector.

i can´t tell from the reflection in the eyes if there is one... but im pretty sure there is.
maybe even a great diffusor overhead.

http://tinyurl.com/bufoe92

Patrick C N Wong's picture

Thats right. This is very interesting . No sign of a reflector neither from the reflection of the glasses or light direction from reflector. Just pure bright shadow.

Mike Kelley's picture

Sand = white = natural reflector

Ryan Peterman's picture

With a high budget shoot (exotic location) they typically shoot as many hours as possible to get it done quick. Generally a big diffuser is used during the "bad light" hours. This + sand equals a pretty flat image. What surprises me is not fill light was used to pop in a catchlight.

Deleted Account's picture

that was my issue as well

Sam Chua's picture

There's usually a giant silk or 12'x12' diffuser above the model. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/642955-REG/California_Sunbounce_C_... like this

Tanja Schulte's picture

i think the images are great as they are.
sure you can see some skin irritations in the bikini zone.
but at least the woman look like real human beings.

woman feel uncomfortable because the print media and TV presents perfect "retouched" bodys.
not even the supermodels are THAT perfect.. but it creates a lot of pressure.

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

Take a picture of someone who is next to you all the time. When you look at a picture you will find many interesting "imperfections" that you normally don't notice. Our brain does not "see" pimples, small scars, skin irritations etc... But when you look at still 2D image, you analyze every detail and every imperfection is actually emphasized. That is why skin retouch is done to most portraits.

There is a difference between blemish removal and what wizardry the fashion industry typically does with Photoshop. I don't mind blemish removal. I mind when eyes and lips are enlarged, necks are lengthened, noses are reworked, waists are tucked in, breasts and buttocks are enlarged, and all wrinkles, even those caused by movement rather than aging (like on the side of the neck in the 4th photo) are erased. What is left is a perfect beauty that no live woman, not even the original model herself, can ever match. It is demoralizing and degrading to all women that this is done routinely to images of fashion models and celebrities.

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

Good women never tried to look like Picasso's models ;)

Tanja Schulte's picture

it´s not only skin retouching.

it´s "body morphing".

and especially young girls get a wrong impression from these retouched images. why do you think 14 year old girls want a breast implant today?or why beauty operations are booming in the USA?

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

 Yes. In USA. These pictures are all over the world but the problem is in USA. Retouching is not a problem. Education is a problem. Parents don't have time for their children. Young people are growing up undervalued. So they are trying to "fix" themselves.
Americans always try to fix the effect of the problem not seeing origination of it. You can notice it throughout the US history. Latest and funniest was limit on sugar-drinks in NYC. Or ban on pit bulls in Miami-Dade county becouse one stupid owner made the dog aggressive. Like that is only one breed that can be raised aggressive.
I could go on and on.
Another example: is ban on guns that gov is working on. Like criminals will start respecting the low and will stop buying illegal weapon because it is illegal.

Seeing problem in retouching or body morphing in the pictures as a social problem is at least an IGNORANCE!!

Tanja Schulte's picture

look beyond your small horizon!

you will see that in other societies people need no guns to protect them and per capita they have WAY LESS gun violence. 
fact is america is a violent society and it´s stupid to give citizens in such a society free access to weapons.

i really can´t hear that stupid "but then only the criminals have guns" argument anymore. i feel much safer when not every jerk and wacko has easy access to guns.

not seeing that it works better in societys with stricter gun laws.... that is real ignorance.

and back to the topic... the problem is not only noticed in the USA:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14304802

http://www.anza.co.nz/Story?Action=View&Story_id=34

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2094440/Rachel-Weisz-advert-ba...

http://suite101.com/article/body-image-and-beauty-a95673

"The media is currently at war with women's body image. This war generally takes on two fronts. The first is the media's portrayal of only one type of woman in magazines, leading film roles, modeling circuits, and television. Often, these women are airbrushed, digitally altered, surgically altered, or suffering from eating disorders. Through this constant portrayal of only one kind of woman as the way women ought to look if they want to be beautiful, a powerful concept is burned into the minds of impressionable men and women. The second front is the constant encouragement for women to lose weight if they wish to be seen as beautiful, coupled with the media and society in general's general disdain for any women who is even a few pounds "overweight."

young girls are easily influenced. it´s a fact. look at highschools and peer pressure.
that´s how it is.. and whisful thinking that it will be different and everyone bursts from self-confidence .. yes that is ignorance.

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

I agree that in advertising of cosmetics they shouldn't manipulate the
picture. In ad of mascara you can clearly see that lashes are Photoshopped. I think in TV, News and Ads lying should be prohibited in a first place
:D Let's see how the world would look then!

 You are focused more about fighting the argument then thinking thru the facts. BTW It is one of the sources of the problems...
Guns are like a Pandora's box. Ones it is open it is there. You can't reverse it, but you can think how to deal with it. Prohibition of alcohol didn't stop people from drinking, just send more to jails. Drugs are illegal and I see people taking, buying and selling drugs every day.
Also, that you feel safer does NOT make you safe. It just makes you FEEL better, until you will get robbed or shot in place, that guns are not allowed. Do you think, if that Colorado shooter new, that people in the theater may be armed, would he even try to open fire? He didn't shoot to armed police officers...
Just think about it.

I was growing up in Poland. It is extremely hard to buy a legal gun there but I've met criminals with hand guns. Maybe junkies don't have easy access to firearms but still everyday someone is being terrorized with a knife, rapped or stubbed. And victims usually feel safe until that moment. These junkies know that these people are defenseless.

The point is, there is no easy fix. Prohibition doesn't work even with children.

In civilized countries people can read and write but they can't think for themselves.
BTW do you believe that RedBull gives you wings? :D Just kidding ;)

Tanja Schulte's picture

well i have never seen anyone with a gun here... except hunters and the police.

i don´t live in fear like most american that someone at work runs amok and shoots me. and yes ... i prefer to live without that fear.

we don´t have ~12000 homicides with guns a year.
we have only a fraction of homicides per capita caused by guns (compared to america).

so im not only feeling safer.. i am safer.

so why is that?

because we have less guns or because a lot of americans are animals that like violence?

not a great choice to make .. eh?

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

I wrote one replay and it disappeared.LOL 
I don't know where do you live and what are statistics in your region but what is the difference between murder committed with a gun vs knife or rope or rock?
Guns don't kill !! People do!

I don't like guns myself but it doesn't change reality. The point is, you can't fix this problem simply prohibiting guns. I wish it was that simple.

The same thing is with the pictures. You can't blame "industry" for peoples low self-esteem. These people have a problem with themselves in a first place. They learned from 1class that the pretty girl is getting more. Teachers treat her better.
It is a big subject. To big for this small forum. :) Fix education. Educate parents how to raise their kids... choose true educators for a teachers... It is long process but here is a problem end here it has to be fixed. If people from young ages will have a high self-esteem, no picture will make them feel bad about themselves.
You, and many like you, put their anger in a wrong place :)

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

"and now you walk around with a gun all day, in case you met a junkie with a gun? i doubt that!"
I want to address this.
The idea is not to walk around with a gun. The idea is to HAVE A RIGHT to carry a gun. If criminal knows that you may be armed he will think twice before he will attack.
If Japan had a nuclear weapon during WWII, USA would not attack Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That is why they never attacked Russia. Because they feared of counterattack. It is basic psychology of equal power. 
But this is far from the subject of conversation and I came back to the point in the post above ;)

Dan E's picture

Tanja, I am kind of amazed by your argument. I am trying not to take offense, but am kind of. Your very passionate, which is honorable. I am blown away by your hatred for my country. Unfortunately, I cannot blame you for your viewpoints in some ways. Our media is much to be desired and has given you a false portrayal of what is going on here. Its nothing like your thinking. The things you have said are completely not true and you should come visit to see what a great and peaceful (for the most part) country it is. Guns or not, its a great place.

 You are an idiot and history speaks for it self... Look at Washington, DC' violent crime rate statisticks when they had their hand gun ban...and look at Scotland...one of the top 5 most violent countries in the world (GUN BAN) Not too mention Mexico (GUN BAN)

Think b4 you speak!

Tanja Schulte's picture

i know you probably have only a public school education but look beyond your limited horizon...  look at other nations that are more civilizised.

i said it´s stupid to give free access to guns in a violent society. that some morons in america will then use knifes to kill.... i don´t doubt it. but it´s easyer to kill with a gun then a knife.

that there are other examples of violent societys.. well what a suprise.. you are a genius!!

that crime rate rised in DC.. well.... they rised in other US states too in that periode. because it was an overall increase in crimes and had nothing to do with the gun ban.
but the gun wackos in the USA believe everything the GUN LOBBY (NRA) tells them... they want too believe.

beside that.... im speaking about homicides caused by guns!!

but only stupid americans can think that more guns make a nation safer.. dumb rednecks.. but hey they voted for g.w. bush twice..... so what shall we expect?!   LOL

but hey it´s not my life that is in danger because of wackos carrying guns... i could not care less what happens in america. :)

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

 You are very angry person. Aren't you?

Tanja Schulte's picture

LOL.... well i hope you are a photographer not a hair model or psychic.... because you would make no money....   :D

if you care to notice.. she called me IDIOT.. but i guess you just ignored that because it fits you...

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

Call me an idiot and I will ignore you ;) "Only public school education", "your small horizons"... if insulting people makes you feel better, that means you're an angry person ;)

Marios Karampalis's picture

The problem with the possession of firearms in America is huge. The guns are sold like candy everywhere! And not just guns but weapons need a soldier on the front line! It's crazy to think that if you have a weapon not being robbed!
Chances are that if you have gun will rob and kill you! Did you know that in America most deaths
caused by guns in the family and not from thugs! 30% of deaths caused by accidents in the family! If you can not buy a gun so easily in America deaths would be reduced by at least 30%, i am not saying that it
would not be robbery, but it is certain that the deaths of legitimate weapons would be reduced. And 50% of deaths resulting from lawful weapons rather than guns from criminals!!! I live in Greece where lawful gun possession does not exceed 2-3%. I do not know anyone who has a gun and I have not seen or have never heard that a friend, partner, relative, neighbor, co-worker, was shot! I live in the capital Athens with 5,000,000 residents, 20 years!
The problem is that guns bring big money to large corporations. And the money in America always deserved and worth more than human life. At some point, the U.S. economy should no longer supported by the companies who get rich by weapons and war and change direction!!!!!

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

You replied in wrong place because here is no more room;)
Marios, I totally agree. It would be beautiful world if firearms would never exist. If you had read the posts before, you'd have understood the point.
BTW... In 2010 in US there were 31,513 deaths from firearms: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. Did 19,308 people died because of the guns or is there a serious problem in society because people don't want to live anymore? Blaming the guns is just the easy way to dismiss real problems.

Marios Karampalis's picture

Surely the American society has serious problems in the last 30 years, I agree.

And that caused 19000 suicides! I shuddered when I saw the number! In Greece, with he economic crisis for 5 years now they have not even 1000 people commit suicide! This does not mean that the prohibition of guns is wrong. Certainly will not solve the whole problem but a part of. It's a start though. When the Americans expel the culture of the dollar and growth in culture of human will then solve the problem. I think the problem is that America is not a national status without the power of the dollar. Without the dollar America are small pieces of other nations that do not work do not communicate! We must find another glue to stick these pieces!

Marios Karampalis's picture

And it is the wrong place for this discussion!!
:-)

Dan E's picture

I am sorry you have such a tainted view of my country. Its nothing like you say. You watch to much news that does not tell the truth. Sorry, but many of your statements are false. And your perceptions of America are completely false. I don't know how so many people in this blog are trashing America when they or you have probably never been here. I say this nicely and with respect

TechnicalGirl's picture

Yes, because all us Americans are gun-toting sociopaths Hell-bent on destroying the world.

We need our guns so we can survive the zombie apocalypse. You think photoshopping supermodels is rampant and out of control now, just wait until the zombies take over! small horizons indeed.

Dan E's picture

Actually being from America, It is NOT a violent society like you saying. Actually, most of America is beautiful and peaceful. The states that do not allow people to own guns have the most crime. And the states that have very free gun laws and the very least crime. Your argument is completely false, coming from somebody living within America who has traveled all over. As a matter of the fact, the studies prove that all the countries with laws prohibiting people from owning firearms, have the most crime. Fact. I try to say this respectfully. Unfortunately, bullies only take a back seat when they are met with equal or greater force. Guns will exist in the hands of criminals weather you ban them or not. Thus, why crime increases when good people don't have them. Taking away firearms from good and decent law abiding citizens who have had background checks will accomplish nothing.

Totally agree with everything you said here. Yup.

Dan E's picture

Try not to blame America. What your saying is a generalization of Americans. The people creating what you referring to is a tiny, tiny portion of the population. And european photographers as well as other photographers around the world do the same thing. I tend to agree with your statement, But as an American and a commercial photographer, I would not create such images. And many share the same view. BTW, I agree on the gun argument.

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

Well, I wasn't blaming photographers nor America as a country. I think photographers and digital artist can and should modify and manipulate the picture whichever way they desire. What I mean in my statement is that, people should get more true education, instead of blaming everyone for problems they have. I want to point that the real problem is not in the pictures, and the solution is not as simple as policing what can be displayed and what cannot. We need to start to educate kids today, so they will be able to educate their kids, to not trust and fallow what the media show.
In USA, we have many generations that were raised by the TV and already few that are raised by the "social media". Parents forgot or don't understand that they have some responsibility. When their kids are obese or bulimic, or they become addicted to drugs and alcohol, or they shoot each other in the school, parents and the community point fingers at the media, photographers, retouchers, movie makers, etc, forgetting that they were not there when their child was 3,5,10 years old.

More comments