Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Verily - the first "No Photoshop" fashion magazine

Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
edited December 2013 in home
Verily - a new Fashion magazine that is going to be launched - is doing something bold. In an effort to portray more realistic standards of beauty, they have pledged not to use Photoshop.

As one of the founders said in that interview:
"Magazines have such a powerful ability to really hold up what is beautiful, desirable, successful and what it means to be modern women. Something like 69% of young girls get their cues on what the ideal body type is by looking at magazines, so I think that having the opportunity to really show what it is that we’re talking about is a great opportunity."
What are your thoughts on this?

On a personal level, regarding my own photography - I usually only remove skin blemishes as a matter of course. Dark rings under the eyes. Scars. Such skin retouching, which I think is minor. I want to portray and idealized, but realistic, image of my clients or any model.


  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited December 2013
    Very similar to Neil, spots/blemishes which are obviously on the face and you know they are not a permanent thing like a mole, etc.

    Only when it's a large close-up portrait I will clean the eyes, darken eyelashes a little, and if skin contains lots of really tiny breakouts like teenagers get I will then do a slight skin smooth.

    Sometimes I give the color one that minimal touch, then I may dupe the original, really do a skin smooth and other things like a 'magazine' but which I then turn into a B&W and add Grain to it in a refined way to give it a proper textured B&W feel as in days of film/B&W contrast paper/darkroom.
  • I have done some work using the liquefy tool to lessen a double chin and use Gaussian blur to enhance skin. Lighting (ocf) and sharp lenses reveal every wrinkle, pimple and "fault" the skin has so I think there is a need for these tools (gaussian blur, clone stamp, etc) to return an unrealistic depiction of an individual to what we see in real life.

    As far as using photoshop to completely alter individuals as we know some magazines do...there seems to be a market for this and consumers need to (should?) stop buying the magazines but that is not happening. Why?

    People have manipulated the looks of animals and plants over the years via artificial selection because of what someone wanted or thought looked better. For example, dogs have changed over the years because of breeding and what people wanted/thought looked good, even if there are people think it is/was unrealistic.

    A possible reason that this manipulation is taking place in photoshop is that longer necks, longer legs, larger eyes, great cheek bones, etc are desirable. Sexual selection among animals has created some ridiculous and ostentatious looking specimens such as male Peacocks, giraffes, male bird of paradise, etc. Some male birds have evolved such long tail feathers due to sexual selection that they are easy pray and don't do well in their environment. Some cultures use rings around women's necks to lower the shoulders so that, after time, the neck appears longer.

    So here is what I am trying to say: There is a market for these manipulations BECAUSE many people find longer necks, longer legs, larger eyes, great cheek bones, etc desirable. They want this look because it is appealing...we are drawn to beauty and symmetry even if ridiculous. Yes, some re-touchers go overboard but don't we do that with everything?

    I don't support those magazines by not buying them but don't disagree with what they do. I would love to be 6' tall with a great head of hair and six pack abs not because of what magazines publish but because it looks good.

    The new magazine will do great as long as there is a niche for it....and I think there is because not everyone embraces the same ideal when it comes to beauty.

  • While I do agree with all the great comments and the Neil's OP, I think it's a fantastic idea, and long overdue. Someone finally came to their senses and put out real images and not fake Photoshopped ones. I'm all for it. Hope it catches on. If I were a Wedding Photographer, I'd def see the need to edit and manipulate images to a certain extent. Brides especially want to have the best pictures possible of their most special day. Completely Warranted. Notice I said, IF I were a Wedding Photographer, which I'm not. Both edited and unedited images have their place. Me. I prefer unedited images, but I'm only referring to people pictures, everything else is game. When I edit People pictures, it's entirely lighting, exposure, noise, saturation, luminance, etc, etc, never their faces or bodies, and Liquify, NOOOOO, unless of course I am so directed too. That's a given. My 2 cents worth.
  • TrevTrev Moderator
    edited December 2013
    penndragonn2001 said: and Liquify, NOOOOO, unless of course I am so directed too. That's a given. My 2 cents worth.
    Agree 100%

    Besides it's extra work. :-(

  • Why is using liquefy taboo? Not all angles flatter people. Does this look unnatural? The moment and the light was so good but the position not that great for him and there was no place for me to go/change perspective-there was a river to my right and I can't float :)

    I will use cloning, liquefy, Gaussian blur, etc as needed but can understand why others won't. I have an intense hatred of the overuse of photoshop actions...I like a little post processing but not on every picture.

    So, again...is this overdone? And this is an ancient pic from my first photo session :) Oh...the memories...
    Shot with a Canon T1i and that plastic 50mm lens

  • Love the shot Rudy. As I stated, I will only use those tools if so directed by a client, and I will let them know prior to any shoot, that those tools are available.
  • Love the link Neil.. Says it all about manipulating images.
  • edited December 2013
    Neil...that made me laugh....but



    and some dodging and burning but not in photoshop


    why does it matter if it is post, pre (via MUA) or accomplished via flattering lighting? The right/wrong light can add 10 years, make you look your age or make the subject look 10 years younger.

    why does it matter HOW we do it? I thought it was all about VISION and CREATIVITY? And no, I am not being an arse (not more than usual anyway) I just do not understand why it matters. I will agree that there is a fine line and it is often crossed but lets stay away from both extremes: the no-editing crowd and the over-editing crowd.

  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    And then there is this … going the opposite direction.
    Changing a beautiful woman into Santa Claus

  • TrevTrev Moderator
    Very clever stuff those guys can do. Funny also of course.
  • This reminds me of the well-intentioned but naive newspapers that promised only good news. It's just not what people want. News is news good or bad and limiting your content based on a politically correct or subjective soap box mission is a recipe for failure. And sure enough Verily is no longer printing magazines, it's gone to just online. The fashion and beauty mags, yes, retouch their subjects. But the news mags I don't think they do, other than the basics. So if Verily was a fashion mag it's not what readers wanted. If it was a news mag they weren't breaking new ground. None of it is the same for clients' portraits, it's a whole different game. Most client want retouching, very rarely do they want the natural look., blemishes and all.
Sign In or Register to comment.