Did GQ digitally enhance January Jones’s massive rack?

gqcover
A few days ago, GQ released some excerpts from January Jones’s November cover interview. January talked about how her first boyfriend Ashton Kutcher was a douche about her acting career in those early days, but she took pains to say that his criticism made her stronger. That got most of the news, although I did note that January looked totally stacked on the GQ cover. I mentioned that I had no idea that her body was this amazing, and now it looks like other people have noticed it too. Apparently, after the GQ cover shot was widely circulated, many claimed that January’s enormous rack must have been somehow digitally enhanced for the cover. GQ responded by putting an interview online with their Director of Photography in a piece called “Yes They’re Real. And They’re Spectacular”.

Really America? Do you not watch Mad Men? We have heard the rumblings that we somehow “enhanced” our Terry Richardson cover shot of January Jones. We did not. Just ask our Director of Photography Dora Somosi.

Okay, so did we mess with January Jones’ cleavage?
No, absolutely not.

Why on earth is anyone saying that?
People think that a person will look the same in every photograph, but that just doesn’t happen. You can have two pictures in the same light, same clothes, same setting, and just a couple of seconds of difference, just the way you move your hands or the way you hold your neck, will change how your body looks. Also, she’s a smaller woman—she’s pretty thin, so it might throw a person off to see her looking this way.

Do lighting and perspective matter at all?
Terry likes to work with harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow—that, and body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger.

So any comparisons between the cover shot and something taken on, say a red carpet…
…are a little ridiculous. Terry Richardson prides himself on unretouched pictures, and we only hire photographers who operate that way. We like a natural look—there’s very minimal retouching.

So what kind of retouching do we do?
We’ll take a pimple out or soften under eye dark circles. Or maybe there’s a wrinkle in the shirt, or even dust on the lens. January Jones needed no help. Trust me.

[From GQ]

Maybe I’m naïve, but I think GQ is telling the truth. If there was any “enhancement” it was probably just a lighting and/or shadow trick. January has showed off her figure in Mad Men a few times, and she does have lovely, natural-looking curves, although it’s kind of hard to tell if her boobs are really this big. Maybe they just seem deceptively smaller when she’s fully clothed. I’ve known girls like that before – they’re usually buttoned-up types and no one thinks they have much going on, but give them a low-cut blouse and a push-up bra and suddenly it’s like “Good Lord, are those fake?”

Header via CoverAwards. Other images are from events as far back as 2006. Credit: Fame Pictures

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

17 Responses to “Did GQ digitally enhance January Jones’s massive rack?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ally says:

    Not retouched, just tacky. I hate that Terry Richardson guy, he should be out there photographing rec room porn; that’s the limit of his style.

  2. Firestarter says:

    I think they are telling the truth too. I mean she could have double sided tape working for her, inside the jacket, but over all, I do not think it was photoshopped (the rack)

  3. snowball says:

    If they’re not enhanced, they’ve definitely been “helped” with makeup and lighting.

    No other picture of her has her boobs being that saggy or round.

  4. Dingles says:

    A men’s magazine enhancing a woman’s breasts to sell more copies. Can’t imagine why they would ever do that.

  5. canuck_grrl says:

    Are we really so used to seeing Photoshop that we think this is not? I am pretty sure EVERY magazine cover shot is retouched…

  6. Kaboom says:

    She certainly wasn’t on my radar because of her rack so far instead of her cute mannerisms.

  7. Spike says:

    She has a small role in the film The Boat That Rocked that gets her down to her undies and it’s clear in the film that she is indeed that stacked.

  8. buellblaster says:

    Udderly ridiculous…

  9. e says:

    why did she even mention Ashton…he isn’t worth it. I am not offended by her cleavage but I keep wanting to zip up her jacket…it seems like they would get chilly.

  10. Raven says:

    Is it me, or does she look like Claire Danes?

    Anyway, the point: I work at an advertising agency. This is a quote from the Production department — “Every single thing you see in an ad has been retouched. Period.” I would underline and italicize if I had the option, but it’s my guess that GQ lied. I’ve absolutely no doubt those have been shadowed and molded to be big major wabbos.

  11. filthycute says:

    Raven, she does look like Danes.

    And I think she has small implants.

  12. Blimbo says:

    I think she’s very pretty and seems sweet, too. Yes, I agree that everything is retouched. I put together nonprofit newsletters and even we retouch things.

  13. Bobby the K says:

    ~

    A lot of times i think women care more about tits then men do.

  14. TwinkleToes says:

    If I was a celeb, people like this mag and awfulplastic surgery.com would swear I had ‘em done, with an elegant bone structure, thin wrists, AJ arms but they’re real. I’m just mixed with 2 different races and lots of ethnic backgrounds that go back, way up north for hundreds of years. People with families only here for 150 years forget about that.

  15. Jazz says:

    Raven you beat me to it! I was going to say she looked like Claire Danes too.

  16. Jackie says:

    Totally retouched!!!! Totally! They made her A-cups look like D-cups. Trust me on this, I conducted an experiment by wearing nothing but a jacket and my Ds looked just like hers in the picture. Scientific proof, people!