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


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.

Sam Wagner'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.


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.

Sam Wagner'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:





"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.

More comments