A group asked them to feature one unshopped model in each issue, and the magazine instead went even further and said they’d stop shopping face and body shapes for every model in every issue from now on.
This is good of course. But I’m often puzzled by corporate decisions like this. Did they get religion? Or is there a reason to think they’ll make more money by refraining from use of photoshop? Or what?
Not a GD exactly, so into IMHO it goes…
is not the same thing as “no Photoshopping”.
And now those same girls are going to have a fit when they start hiring models that don’t represent ‘real teens’ or use flattering lighting and angles when they take the pictures (and good photographers) that make them look ‘fake and unrealistic’. OR, they’ll use 'real girls, they won’t change their body or face shape and eventually people will move to Teen People and Teen Vogue because people like the pictures better. It would be kind of funny if they were just doing this for a few months to prove a point.
I am not sure why you are saying this.Who said anything about no Photoshopping?
But that’s exactly what puzzles me–I assume a giant corporation that pulls in multiple millions (billions?) of dollars each year would know if a move like this would hurt sales. And it’s surprising to me if it wouldn’t hurt sales. Yet, there they are, making the move.
Like I said, does this just mean they got religion? Or do they know something I don’t? (Very likely I guess!) Or what?
So the thread title doesn’t mean that Seventeen Magazine are to stop using photoshop?
Curse these cryptic thread titles.
Your thread title
It’s not cryptic. The text of the post is extremely brief and immediately clarifies that they agreed to stop using photoshop in the ways most people think are egregious. I don’t know of anyone who would complain about using photoshop to edit out out-of-place hairs or wrinkles in clothes.
Okay, in the interest of of preventing epileptic seizures, I hereby ask for a mod to edit the thread tile.
But they only agreed not to change face or body shape. They’re still going to use it to make skin look perfect, edit out smile lines, crow’s feet, freckles, wrinkles, make boobs look better, maybe adjust a nose a bit, make the whites of an eye bright white and the someone’s blue eyes pop right off the page. You’re still not going to see teeth with a yellowish tinge or a single blemish anywhere. (At least that’s my guess)
All of which you immediately and clearly understood from reading the extremely brief OP. If you were momentarily and unintentionally misled by the title, you were immediately corrected in this misunderstanding by reading the first sentence of the post itself. Complaining about the title is for this reason ludicrous.
But I don’t want to kill anyone or make them have to go to the hospital so I did ask for the title to be changed.
Several of the changes you mention, btw, appear to me to be changes in face or body shape (making boobs looking better, adjusting the nose, getting rid of smile lines and crow’s feet). But of course you’re right that what they’ve said they’ll refrain from gives them considerable leeway.
Not using photoshop means taking a picture…then publishing it. That’s what a photojournalist does. No editing at all. It comes out of the camera and hits the presses. They don’t even get to adjust the lighting once the shutter button has been pushed.
IMO, not adjusting body or face shape means not making their waist look smaller, their hips bigger, their thighs smaller, their legs longer, their boobs bigger (yeah, I was probably wrong on that one, but a pushup bra and some tape can do it too) etc. But erasing crows feet and smile lines isn’t changing the shape of anything, it can be done with make up just as well).
In fact, a lot of what can be done in photoshop can be done by makeup, lighting, wardrobe and a good photographer as well, but it’s easier, faster and cheaper to do it in post. Plus it gives the editors more flexibility later to change things if they want.
Too late. Arrrggghhh
A NYTimes feature with additional details:
[INDENT]Ann Shoket, the magazine’s editor in chief, wrote in the editor’s letter in the August issue that the magazine had drafted what it called a Body Peace Treaty (…)
the magazine promises that it will “never change girls’ body or face shapes” and will include only images of “real girls and models who are healthy.”
It also said it would provide more transparency about its photo shoots by posting images of the shoots on the magazine’s Tumblr blog so readers could see the progression of the pictures.[/INDENT]
I’m guessing Seventeen made the statement:
– to defuse a medium-size PR storm (there was a petition and numerous articles about the petition)
– because it might be the right thing to do
– because it gives the mag some publicity, which magazines desperately need
– because it’s almost a meaningless gesture
It’s almost meaningless, because refraining from shaping faces and bodies is not a sacrifice. It might save them retouching fees. Any loss of glamour will be minimal – they can just shoot skinnier models.
So it’s good publicity and won’t make an important change to how the models look. Admittedly I don’t know if Seventeen has heretofore routinely squeezed waists-magnified breasts-stretched legs.
I’d imagine there are a few factors here. Seventeen is not exactly a high fashion magazine. It’s been a while since I’ve been in their demographic, but I remember an issue might include a couple fashion spreads, some ad-driven product reviews, and a few pop interest articles. There may not be a ton of editing being done, and a lot of that can be taken care of by taking a little bit of care during the shoot.
Seventeen itself must be hurting right now. It was never a very robust publication, but years ago young girls didn’t have a ton aimed at them. Now, this demographic has a lot more media options. Maybe this move reflects a shift in strategy, and Seventeen is going to try to court a more thinking crowd. There are tons of media publications aimed at smart college-age girls, and maybe Seventeen is trying to get to them as teens.
Because teenage fashion models are hideous beast creatures that no human can gaze upon without waves of disgust? Seriously, it is possible to take a picture of a girl and have it look nice. Reality is not a bad thing.
Hyperbole much?
It’s worth noting that *Seventeen *isn’t aimed at or read by seventeen year olds, though they keep up the pretense. It’s read by 14 year olds pretending/anticipating being 17.
As such, I suspect that many Seventeen subscriptions are paid for by parents or are gifts from slightly clueless older female relatives. This is a group that might be pleased by this announcement.
It’s okay to just admit you made an error (in phrasing or whatever) without trying to make it everyone else’s fault for noticing.
The complete story is a lot less surprising than the title led people to believe.