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

Previous comments

These images represent the REAL body. All natural perfect and beautiful. I understand the reason why some parts gets retouched, like skin or veins or what ever. At the same time, nobody would react to those small stuff if you would see the model live in front of you. But in a photo it gets to obvious and clear.

Anyway, the model is really making retouchers job much easier!

/ www.zayaphotography.com

This is unretouched?! :O

Alex Henderson's picture

fresh, original

These are truly offensive. How could they allow these to leak?

somebody is gonna get fired

Searching for the final pix above - i found this.
http://www.victoriassecret.com/swimwear/bikinis/the-liya-tropicalia-push...
Does this look unrealistic only for me?

Looks like the blue bikini was photoshopped on. Very bad.

It looks so flat. Especially the short! Almaost without shades ...
An intern? ;o)

Kim akimoto's picture

they photoshop various color of model outift from one single shot, so they can save money to paid those models or maybe to save the time. That's why some pic looks weird...

Rhonda Parrish's picture

That photoshop job actually makes the bikini look creepy.

Bones.... But much better and realistic. Shows how unattractive underweight bodies really are.

Mirco Wilhelm's picture

I actually really like those litte scars on the legs :)

Carl Michaels's picture

Harsh light, even for her...

I agree that post production can sometimes go too far. Removing a pimple or a scar is fine. Softening the skin a little is ok as long as it's not overdone. When we start changing peoples dimensions is when it's going a little too far IMO.
As photographers we are all about presenting people in their best light (literally). This extends to photoshop these days as much as it did to the darkroom back in the day. We have the tools to improve our images so why not use them? Just use them responsibly.
www.allan-photography.com

Bree Van de Kamp's picture

I'm really pleased I saw these photos. They make me feel a lot better about myself! I always had this idea that models were like a different species, no scars, no shave rash, just perfect but I realise they're just (extremely beautiful) normal people and that makes me happier in my own skin. Thankyou for this article.

Chuck Green's picture

I almost threw up. Someone photoshop these immediately.

Kim akimoto's picture

 funny dude

Hard to say without seeing the touched up versions.

Chris Lyn's picture

You have to look at these photos from the perspective of either for commercial purposes or for artistic purposes. Commercially, they need some retouching for the imperfections. But artistically, I think they look ok as is, maybe a bit more dramatic lighting.

The badly fitting tops. Those poor boobies. :(

Lukas Fisher's picture

Huh. They are all still stunningly beautiful, but the point of a picture isn't to glorify the woman in it, it's to sell the piece of clothing she has on.

Esmertina Bicklesnit's picture

I would like to retouch some flesh onto these poor creatures. I find it so bizarre that this is supposed to be the feminine ideal. It makes me think I must be on the wrong planet.

It's a little hard for me to believe the comments that say that seeing these slight skin imperfections is making women feel better about themselves. But then again, when I see models, I don't feel bad about myself, I feel bad about the people who are attracted to this. Because, really? You want protruding bones and arms that could snap like a twig? If any of these women stand sideways and stick out their tongue they would look like a zipper. And the poses ... seriously? They don't just make you laugh? The ones on their knees look like they're peeing. And the rest just look uncomfortable and ridiculous, neither of which is sexy to me.

But I do think it's cute that the model in the bottom picture has panties on under the string bikini bottom. Just think, if they leave that in, and make it the next trendy look, they can start a whole new revenue stream of underbikini panties!

Love your comment. She could use some food.

The fact that they are underexposed in many cases and appear to be no better than snapshots from an amateur is what bothers me most. Funny how some photographers make it big but are just average or below shooters.

Red Tears Black Wing's picture

I don't think that a whole lot really needs touching up, the pictures show a normal woman. However I do think it's important to remove the scars on her legs because if they where to leave them it might be seen as the company endorsing self harm, and yes people I can promise you that they're self harm scars on her legs they're more or less identical to the ones that I've got on my leg. In fact even though its an image they can still be quite triggering, which really isn't appropriate to send out into the world for all to see.

I'm amazed that they retouch any skin or body stuff. They're so unbelievably perfect I would find it stunning just to see their real bodies. Better color and contrast sure, but leave the skin alone. On the other side, they do have the exact same bodies as my neighbor's 7 year old daughter who's a gymnast and who barely eats. It makes it pretty hard for the rest of us to walk around feeling that beauty is possible when the ideal is a 7 year old with boobs.

Kindra Kinnaman-Reeves's picture

Wow.....I don't see the need for retouching here. I just don't. As a photographer's daughter yes I see small imperfections, but nothing so drastic it absolutely needs retouching. If I looked like these women I would be very happy with myself. The retouching just makes them look so fake and it puts so much pressure on woman who don't look like that that they do whatever it takes to look like that whether they starve themselves or are anorexic. They should release a catalog at least one month where the photos aren't retouched and get feedback. I bet it would be a lot better.

Calli Walton's picture

Nothing needs to be retouched here! A little armpit bra bulge happens to the best of us. A little bikini zone redness, no biggie either. Some scars on her leg? Whatever, it's a sign of an exciting life! If anything else, the only thing this girl is really in dire need of is a sandwich!

George Socka's picture

Dont understand teh griping. VS is selling clothes, not women. And women obviously buy those clothes in huge volumes to impress mainly men.. According to Limited's financials, VS sales for 2011-2012 are $6 BILLION. All based on the look created by their garment designers. And their photographers and videographers and in store stylists. The stores, the advertising material and the models in it are there for only one reason. To get people to buy their stuff. And if an extra stretch mark, and extra skin discoloration, a shifty shoulder can all be corrected with Photoshop to make the garment stand out and scream "buy me"
then that is what must be done. People who don't like that can always shop at Wal-Mart. But, have you looked at a Wal-Mart flyer lately? Pretty perfect people looking selling their stuff too. And if that keeps a bunch of designers, stylists, photographers, videographers and retouchers employed, in the Us and Canada, then BRAVO. Where do I apply?
 

Rolando Gomez's picture

As a pro photographer whose written six books on photographing women, these photos make me feel good because they lack some simple photographic principles that I can't believe were not followed--not to discredit the photographers, but the simple, keep the horizon line level was overlooked in several of the photos. While the models are pretty, following simple photography guidelines, or in this case, not following them, is what leads to "retouching" or correcting the image.

I'm actually shocked that the lighting could've been better too! Harsh lighting can be softened with scrims, lack of lighting filled with reflectors--the sand and water can only do so much. While I know the model is only the "coat hanger" in fashion photography, they are squinting which causes the lines in the forehead--this can be eliminated by using "black" cloth reflectors, yes, black will absorb some of the light and reduce the squinting. You can also place black tule over a zebra, silver or gold reflector to reduce squinting in the models eyes. Just my two centavos worth, as yes, it's about selling the product, but the more you get it right in the camera, the less retouching you actually need.

More comments