I have to admit to only having the vaguest idea of who actress Rachael Leigh Cook was prior to reading these recent comments. She’s just not on my radar, so I asked Kaiser if she knew of her. She remembers her from 1999′s She’s All That, and says the film “was so horrible, it was actually charming.” Rachael seems to be doing TV work now and I guess she’s on USA’s Psych. Anyway Rachael was a guest at a conference on media impact on youth, and she was very outspoken in her opposition to the rampant Photoshopping that goes on in the industry. I really like what she had to say, although I find her stance a little severe.

Actress Rachael Leigh Cook has joined forces with Academy Award winner Geena Davis, The Creative Coalition, and Girl Scouts of the USA for a Summit in Washington, D.C to address the impact of media images on youth. The group addressed particularly the struggle girls go through reconciling media’s idealized portrayal of women with their own bodies and self-worth.

“I did not grow up getting told about how manipulated the images we see of women and girls out there are, and I think it’s an absolute travesty that young women are seeing what the media is feeding them,” Cook told Pop Tarts. “It breaks my heart to be part of an industry and part of a machine that really pushes out these images and propagates these really terrible standards that are false.”

This is something Cook, 31, can relate to first-hand. After completing her first film “The Babysitter’s Club” at age 15 in 1995, the actress battled her own body image-related demons.

“I remember gaining quite a bit of weight on the first movie that I worked on because, ‘hey, free food!’. You’re at that stage where your body is just changing so actively, so it was a natural change, but I remember finishing that film and realizing that I had gained probably 10 pounds over the course of filming which is a lot when you’re only 5’2,” Cook said. “I knew then that I needed to go and really try and get healthy. I went too far in the other direction and I worried my parents for a while, I think it’s fair to say. I think that it’s something that many, many teenage girls go through, especially ones that are achievers and ambitious. You’re looking for a sense of control, and when you’re in a really transitional phase in your teenage years, I think it’s a pretty normal reaction to develop food issues.”

The “She’s All That” star is now not only urging youth to go online and Google “Photoshop Tutorial” to learn exactly what experts do to the images of all the celebrities and models out there, but she also wants the American public to know that even papparazi snaps aren’t all they’re purported to be.

“Nothing that you see is real, even if you look at what looks like a candid photo of someone, anything can be done. It is false advertising and false advertising is a crime so why isn’t this a crime? I’m just up in arms about it,” Cook added. “People need to know that there are actual lenses that are put on cameras that make people stretched out. If you saw these actors in person, you wouldn’t even recognize them as the people you see on TV. It’s just all a complete illusion and maybe it should be viewed as art, the way that art isn’t real. The way that a picture of a rose can be beautiful, but it’s not a real rose.”

[From Fox News via Huffington Post]

I don’t think we should criminalize Photoshop at all, but some kind of small print disclaimer might be called for, i.e. “image has been digitally altered.” This will probably never happen, is too difficult to execute and I’m not really arguing for it, but wouldn’t it be interesting if all advertisements and magazines were required to include a link where people could view the original image prior to editing? Like just to show the reality of the original image even with lighting, makeup and hair? They’d come up with new ways to make the original photos more flattering, but it might cut down on the massive Photoshopping that goes on.

A commenter on one of our Kirstie Alley “weight loss” posts once pointed me to this Exif viewer which allows you to see how much a photo is edited based on file data. I don’t really understand how it works, but it tells you how many times the photo was edited and saved, which in the case of the Kirstie Alley legless weightless photo was something like 16 times. When we saw Kirstie again after she supposedly lost 50 pounds she definitely didn’t look as thin as she did in that photo.

So does Photoshopping give impressionable young people unrealistic body ideals? Definitely. Maybe with more awareness of how easy it is to digitally alter photos we’ll help protect our kids from the negative impact of those images. Even if you realize that the models really aren’t as thin and gorgeous as they look in the ads, they still have the power to make you feel unattractive, though. They also have the power to sell you crap you don’t need, and that’s what this is really all about.

Here’s that super popular “Dove Evolution of Beauty” video (thanks to KidGlue for reminding me), and here’s a link to more Photoshop “Makeovers” on youtube.

I love Kristin Davis. I’ve loved her since Melrose Place, and I ended up loving the Charlotte character on Sex and the City – the television show, not the film. One of the reasons I’ve always adored Kristin is that she always had a “realistic” body type and she seemed to own it. She’s “pear-shaped” I suppose – with bigger hips, thighs and booty on an otherwise small, slender frame. Though SATC was so heavy on the fashion porn, I always appreciated that they tried to keep Charlotte grounded in fashion reality, to a point. She always had the best clothes, I thought, great shifts and pencil skirts and pieces that emphasized her curves. So it with consternation that I’m looking at Kristin’s cover of Fitness Magazine. Is this her body? I don’t remember her body looking like this. Her top half, sure, I’ll buy it. But Kristin is a girl with some hips and thighs. Did she lose a lot of weight? Judging from her interview, it doesn’t sound like it. Kristin talks about how much she enjoys food, so the Photoshopped cover makes for an interesting dichotomy:

Here’s the skinny: Kristin Davis has embraced her curves.

“I’m never going to be the thinnest actress, and I don’t want to be,” the Sex and the City star, 45 (the sequel hits theaters May 27), tells the May issue of Fitness. “I have hips!”

Davis admits it was “very intimidating” to slip into a bikini for the mag’s cover.

“There are people who feel comfortable in bathing suits, and I don’t know how they do it,” she says. “I worked with Kristen Bell and Malin Akerman on the movie Couples Retreat, and they didn’t care about standing around in their bikinis for days. The guys in the movie were more self-conscious than they were!”

Davis — who has been running since her days on Melrose Place, and even taught yoga when she first moved to L.A. — tries to keep a healthy diet.

“I eat a lot of chicken, salmon, eggs and side salads. But if all I ate were salads every day, I’d shoot myself,” she says. “Who cares if you can fit in your skinny jeans if you can’t enjoy life and have something good to eat? I went through periods when I said I can’t have this, I can’t have that. Now I don’t deprive myself. Food is meant to be enjoyed.”

The actress — who will host the More/Fitness Women’s Half Marathon in New York City’s Central Park on April 25 — does indulge in M&Ms and ice cream in the summer.

“One trick I’ve learned is that if I have an ice cream bar, I’m OK having four bites and then throwing it away,” she says. “I don’t need to eat the whole thing to feel satisfied.”

When asked about the worst rumor she’s read about herself, Davis says, “That the cast of Sex and the City hates one another. We’re standing so close during filming that we touch for 18 hours a day, and then people want to say we don’t get along. It’s the funniest thing in the world.”

She even hits the gym occasionally with Sarah Jessica Parker, 45.

“Sarah Jessica doesn’t need a support buddy. She’s one of the most motivated people I’ve ever met, and she has an amazing body even when she doesn’t work out; though, like the rest of us, she doesn’t feel that way,” Davis says.

[From Us Weekly]

Ugh, is that what happened? Kristin started looking at Sarah Jessica Parker and thought, “I want to look like that”? Please, no. SJP used to have a really amazing figure too – and I bought that it was just her genes and her active lifestyle. But in recent appearances, something has taken a turn for the worse. Anyway, I tend to think that Kristin still has the same basic figure she had during the show, and this cover was probably Photoshopped like crazy.

Fitness cover courtesy of CoverAwards.

So I was just glancing through Allure online, and I found the slideshow for Catherine Zeta-Jones’ cover shoot. Last week I mentioned the Allure cover as being so airbrushed and Photoshopped, it looked like they were using a photo of Catherine circa The Mask of Zorro. So, once I came to the slideshow, I was happily browsing, seeing how bad the entire shoot was. And then I came to this one:

Jesus. That’s the ass Michael Douglas gets to mount whenever his blue pills are working. She looks amazing. Airbrushed, of course. But still amazing. I wish I had her skin.

Anyway, Allure hasn’t released much from the cover interview, but there are a couple of interesting quotes:

On her plans for the future: The actress’s plan for her family, which includes husband Michael Douglas and their two young children: living on a boat and sailing around the world. “I wouldn’t be surprised if [we do] that,” she says.

Going naked for the photo shoot: When it was time for the nude portion of the shoot, Zeta-Jones promptly dropped her robe. “That’s when your dancing days and being in theater pay off,” she said. “When you’re doing a quick change, you don’t give a sh-t who sees you.”

On being in the trenches with Michael: “The only person I want to be in the trenches with is Michael. You know he’s got your back.” And does her husband want to be in the trenches with anyone else? “Probably not,” she says, with a sudden peal of laughter. “Probably Kathleen Turner.”

On having a hard knock life: “I left school at 15,” Zeta-Jones says of her life experiences. “I’ve been on the road all my life. I’ve seen a lot; I’ve heard a lot. And you grow up really kind of quick.”

[From Allure]

Is it wrong that I love her answer to the question “Do you think Michael Douglas wants to be in the trenches with you?” He and Kathleen Turner did love each other quite a bit. I think he’s kind of in love with Glenn Close too. I think he and Sharon Stone get along well too. But these days, I think he would pick Catherine for his trenches. I mean, look at that ass!

Oh, this one is a favorite too – Catherine looks like she’s about to shank that makeup lady:

Allure photos courtesy of the online slideshow.

Ugh. I just saw the two May covers for Vogue Magazine and Allure (apologies for the Ebay logos, they’re the best images I could find), and now I’m totally pissed off. What in the Photoshop hell is happening? First, let’s take Catherine Zeta-Jones for Allure. I think highly of Catherine’s beauty – if she’s had work done, it’s good work that you can’t detect. She looks fabulous – although she doesn’t look 40 years old, which she allegedly is. So, if you’re a beauty magazine and you get Catherine for your cover, wouldn’t you want to do a solid, and not Photoshop two decades off of her face? Yes, she has gorgeous skin. But her skin does not look like this! It’s like they used a photo of her from The Mask of Zorro.

Next up, Sarah Jessica Parker’s cover shot (by Mario Testino) for the May issue of Vogue. Let me say this – I’m so f-cking sick of SJP’s Vogue appearances. I guess they keep putting her on because Carrie Bradshaw works for Vogue? But surely Vogue doesn’t need the cross-promotion. SJP really doesn’t bring anything to the Vogue brand. Especially considering she’s barely recognizable on the cover. What kind of soft-focus sh-t is this? Is the same sh-t that Barbara Walters gets for live television? What was Testino thinking? He usually does glossy, not soft-focus matte. I guess Anna Wintour didn’t want to see SJP’s face do “glossy”.

Oh, and if this wasn’t bad enough, sources told Page Six that SJP is in a bikini at some point in the photo shoot. Ugh. By the way, compare and contrast SJP’s actual face with her Vogue face:

Covers courtesy of The Fashion Spot’s Forums.

The above image is the new print ad for the perfume “Dare Me” which was apparently created by Kimora Lee Simmons. She is the face of “Dare Me” and will be starring in all future advertising for the perfume. Kimora told WWD that “message with this fragrance is empowerment and self-reliance.” Unspoken: “…empowerment and self-reliance and somebody sticking my head on another woman’s body.” Don’t believe me? Here’s is a photo of Kimora from the beginning of March:

So, basically, the ad is beyond airbrushing. HuffPo and New York Magazine are both theorizing about whether Kimora’s head really was popped onto some other lady’s body, and whether or not this was Kimora’s evil plan all along:

Kimora Lee Simmons’s new fragrance Dare Me is cheap. No, really. Instead of beginning with prestige distribution like her past fragrances, this will go straight to a total of 18,000 mass-market doors, like Walgreens, Target, and Kohl’s stores. Prices range from $12 for a travel-size bottle to $28 for a full ounce.

However, what probably wasn’t cheap about this launch were the marketing materials, because hello, retoucher! Either they Photoshopped Kimora’s body to death or stuck her head on a model’s body. The question is, if they did the latter, would they tell her? Ironically, Kimora says the “message with this fragrance is empowerment and self-reliance.”

[From New York Magazine]

Yep. And you know Kimora probably approved this sh-t 100%. What I’d really like to know is whether or not the staff was like, “Actually, we’re just going to pop your head onto this chick’s body” or if they didn’t say anything and Kimora actually thinks she looks like this. Note: I am not saying Kimora has a bad figure at all. Her normal body looks fine – great even, especially since she just gave birth to son Kenzo less than a year ago. And obviously, she’s got something going on, because Djimon Hounsou is still all over her. But let’s be straight – this is not her body, and she shouldn’t be putting herself out there, promotionally, with lines like “this fragrance is all about empowerment and self-reliance.” Empowerment is not your head on another woman’s body.

Here are some photos of Kimora from January and February:

Ad is courtesy of HuffPo.

New mom Kourtney Kardashian is upset that OK! Magazine featured her on the cover as part of a story on weight loss after baby. The title read “My diet secrets: lose 10 pounds in 10 days,” but Kourtney says that she didn’t even grant the magazine an interview. She’s also upset because the photo used for the cover, for which she posed for a photo agency, was slimmed down through Photoshop. (You can see a comparison of the two photos on E! Online.) OK! Magazine even went as far as to completely build her body from the waist down because the photos they used only showed her upper half. Here’s Women’s Wear Daily’s take on this minor controversy.

The reality TV star contends she never spoke to OK for the cover story, which quotes her as well as her friends and stepfather, Bruce Jenner. “They doctored and Photoshopped my body to make it look like I have already lost all the weight, which I have not,” Kardashian told WWD. She also spoke out to her Twitter followers: “One of those weeklies got it wrong again…they didn’t have an exclusive with me. And I gained 40 pounds while pregs, not 26…But thanks!”

The cover photo features Kardashian posing with her baby, Mason, a shot taken seven days after his birth by Albert Michael of StarTraksPhoto.com. The cover image has been touched up to make Kardashian appear thinner on OK’s cover than in the original photo, which first appeared as part of the Jan. 11 issue of Life & Style.

It also seems that OK has built the lower half of Kardashian’s body for its cover, as the original images were cropped at the belly. An OK spokesman declined comment.

[From WWD via E! Online]

OK! is really stooping low if they’re making up cover stories with Kardashians. They should have used the photo of Jessica Simpson with the fake “I love my body” quote. Maybe it was too hard to reconstruct the rest of her body from that photo. What the hell happened to that magazine? They used to be like a budget People but now they’re a budget Star. Ever since OK! fired their editor last May and replaced her and higher-level staff with marketing consultants they’ve gone down the tubes.

This is better than yet another misleading Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart issue or that time when they featured a photo of dead Michael Jackson on the cover. Do any of you buy OK! and is it a decent gossip rag? It hasn’t been on my list for a while.

Last month, photographer Anthony Citrano pointed out that Demi Moore’s December W cover was Photoshopped clumsily and that she looked like she was missing a chunk of her left hip. In response, Moore called the allegation “bullsh*t” on Twitter and posted what she claimed was the original, unretouched photo. W Magazine admitted that the photo had been altered but that it was “nothing out of the ordinary.” They later confirmed that “no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image of Demi Moore that was sent to us [by the photographers].” The photographers, Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott said there was “absolutely no retouching on her hips, waist or legs.” That might be partially honest – it looks like Demi’s head was just pasted on to a 26 year-old model’s body. In that case, they didn’t retouch Demi’s body, they retouched model Anja Rubik’s body with Demi’s head pasted on it. (See image below.)

Fast forward to a month later, and Demi’s lawyer has sent a threatening letter to Citrano (link leads to PDF file) telling him that he must remove “all the false and defamatory statements about my client and the cover photo as well as any accompanying pictures of the W cover” and issue a “retraction and apology” or “be exposed to substantial liability.” In response, Citrano points out that there are subtle differences between even the photo Moore claims is the original and the resulting W cover. He says he’s not backing down and that it’s ridiculous to go after him for stating the obvious. It’s also pretty ripe that Demi Moore, who regularly Tweets about her personal life, including foreplay with her husband, would try to shut down one guy’s opinion on the Internet. Is her lawyer going to go after all the commenters on her “original” Twitpic who say it’s fake?

On Tuesday night, I received an aggressive and threatening letter from Martin Singer, Demi Moore’s attorney. It is marked “Confidential Legal Notice – Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited”. However, since Mr. Singer and I have no confidentiality agreement, and it provides essential context to the matter at hand, I have decided to publish it.

I’ll start by expressing how bizarre it feels to be immersed in a controversy that should be no controversy at all. The question of whether a celebrity was over-retouched is not one I am particularly proud of spending my mental cycles on.

When I originally pointed out (in a friendly, lighthearted way) a simple retouching blooper, I had no inkling of the total shitstorm that would follow. It gained momentum quickly, and I commented to several media outlets on the matter, always sure to frame it fairly: I have no problem with digital retouching (do it all the time), no problem with Demi Moore (she’s a beautiful woman), think the image is a great shot (kudos, Mert and Marcus) – I simply thought the missing hip-chunk was funny. I thought we could all laugh about it for the day (maybe tack it up on a retoucher’s wall of shame) and move on to the far more important things. We are all human; we all make mistakes (me, more than my fair share.)…

So I knew sitting idly by while my veracity was attacked was not an option, especially in light of the huge reach of Ms. Moore’s words and my sincere belief that I was right. So after sleeping on it, I put my money where my mouth was and offered $5,000 to a charity of her choosing if she proved it really was the original. Unsurprisingly, my offer fell on deaf ears. In the following weeks it quieted down, and I thought (and hoped) it was over – until I received Mr. Singer’s letter.

I spent several days considering how to respond. On one hand, I do not want a fight over something so pointless; but on the other, my personal reputation is under attack.

Mr. Singer: I did not insinuate that your client was untruthful or hypocritical. I did not imply or infer that the photo was manipulated at her behest. I simply said that the photo had very obvious signs of clumsy retouching, most particularly what appeared to me (and thousands of others) to be a missing chunk of hip.

And I absolutely stand by my statements.

I also have a very hard time understanding what is “defamatory” about describing an image as retouched. Digital retouching is an important part of modern publishing and photography workflow. I doubt a single image has graced a major magazine cover in the past decade without being altered in some way. Ms. Moore’s implication that her image went straight from camera to cover is incredible, whether she believes it or not. Simply put, this never happens.

[From ZigZagLens]

If you don’t like getting called out on the Internet, don’t go posting all your personal information online. This woman says she’s never had any plastic surgery whatsoever. Maybe her assertion is like the photographers claiming they didn’t retouch “her hips, waist or legs.” It all depends on what your definition of plastic surgery/retouching is.

Photo below thanks to PopCultureMadness

There was a lot of buzz over the fact that Demi Moore seemed to be missing a chunk of her thigh in her photo on the cover of W Magazine. Demi is a very thin woman, but her hip is probably not a few inches smaller than her thigh. In her defense, Moore posted a photo to Twitter that she claimed was the original, unretouched version used for W. It showed her hip pushed in like on the cover picture, and she wrote “Here is the original image people my hips were not touched don’t let these people bullshit you!” Moore also retweeted a response from a fan that said “its just the way u have ur hip kinda swung to one side..y can noone see this!?”

W Magazine admitted the image was altered but said it was “nothing out of the ordinary.” The photographer that shot Demi for W who first spotted the flub says that of course the photo is retouched, and calls it a “blooper” that belongs on the “art department wall of shame.” Photographer Anthony Citrano was kind enough to e-mail us with his comments and says that he’ll donate $5,000 to the charity of Demi’s choice if she can prove that the photo she posted is the original.

I saw your article on the Demi Moore photoshop flub – I’m the photographer who started the whole thing – and after giving it a lot of thought (and being accused of “bullshit” by Demi overnight), I’m raising the stakes: http://twitter.com/acitrano/status/5894990728

While I really feel bad that Demi is on defense over this, I also don’t like being accused of “bullshit.” So, let’s find out who’s bullshitting. This isn’t about her and it isn’t about retouching (I’ve no problem with either). It’s about a blooper, basically. The cover is a blooper; it goes on the art department’s wall of shame. So what? We
all make mistakes. That’s got *nothing* to do with Demi. She’s a beautiful woman with or without retouching. And where the hell is W Magazine on this? Why are they forcing Demi to address it? It’s not fair to her.

[From Anthony Citrano, received via e-mail]

In a follow-up e-mail, Citrano explained “I have no problem with Demi nor with Photoshopping – but I don’t like her accusation of ‘bullshit’ toward me, and then posting what she claims is the original as if it’s some kind of ‘proof’ – while most of her bazillion twitter fans take it as gospel.” Demi probably isn’t missing a piece of her thigh, then. Even if her thigh was somehow pushed in by the way she was standing to the side, it’s not like that’s her everyday face, and her body looks unnaturally thin. So why is she so defensive about the photo? Why doesn’t she just admit she was retouched and be done with it? It’s not like all the other celebrity cover photos aren’t airbrushed into oblivion. This must be a sore spot for Demi, and seems to tie in with all the times she’s denied any kind of plastic surgery. Demi is so naturally beautiful even her cover photos are all natural!

Update: Anthony Citrano is not the photographer who shot Demi for W, but his photos have run in W and he is the one who first noticed the blatant Photoshopping.

It appears as if Moore’s entire body may have been replaced. Popculturemadness points out that Demi’s body looks like it was replaced with a supermodel in that same dress and exact same pose on the catwalk. (Thanks taya for the tip!)