I received this question in my formspring.me box:
Have you seen the release of the unretouched photos of Brittany Spears for the new Candies ads? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1265676/Britney-Spears-releases-airbrushed-images-digitally-altered-versions.html). What do you think of them?
This is the 4/14/2010 Daily Mail Reporter article she is referring to:
“Britney Spears bravely agrees to release un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally-altered versions
“Celebrities, and the industry around them, are often accused of producing images that affect young people’s body image.
“Which is why it’s so refreshing to see one of the world’s most famous pop stars allowing all of their imperfections to be highlighted.
“Britney Spears has allowed the pre-airbrushed images from a shoot she took part in for fashion firm Candie’s to be used ALONGSIDE the digitally-altered ones, so people can see the difference.
“In the first shot, she is seen facing the camera with her arms behind her back. Imperfections that can be clearly seen in the un-airbrushed shot include blemishes on her calf, her larger thighs and, if you look really closely, you can see her feet have dry skin on them.
“The airbrushed pictures, however, tell a different story with a slimmed-down waist and flawless, skinny legs.
“Meanwhile, in the second picture, she is seen from the back – in the un-airbrushed shot she has areas of cellulite on the back of her thighs, a tattoo on her lower back (sometimes called a ‘tramp stamp’) is clearly visible and her backside is a little out of shape.
“However, in the altered photo all of these imperfections have been wiped out – and she appears to have a pert rear, unrealistically smooth skin, slimmer legs and the tattoo has vanished.
“A source told the Daily Mirror newspaper: ‘Britney is proud of her body – imperfections and all.’
“Of the experience, the singer told press: ‘I had so much fun shooting the Candies for Kohl’s campaign. My favorite set-up was against the gigantic wall of pink cotton candy.’
“And she added: ‘I got to wear the cutest clothes and they are perfect for summer!'”
So…here’s my 2cents since you asked…
I think it’s pretty obvious from Britney’s history that she is not particularly savvy when it comes to press and PR…and thus, it is most certainly stretching the truth to write that she “made the extraordinary move in order to highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect.” I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t her idea in the first place, and she likely did not care one way or the other, as Britney Spears has never seemed overly concerned with women’s issues in the first place. (Unlike Jessica Simpson, for example.)
Excessive Photoshopping and “realism” in magazines and advertising is currently a hot debate topic…perhaps in part kicked off by that unretouched photo of Lizzie Miller in Glamour Magazine last September (photo above)…and it’s patently obvious that Candie’s wanted to be a part of it. (Don’t get me started on why they decided to use Britney Spears as poster girl for the Candie’s brand in the first place…I find it a strange and almost PR-blind decision, but whathaveyou.) It’s sort of winceworthy that they chose to highlight Britney’s imperfections in releasing these photos…we’ve all seen the numerous tabloid photos of her over the years and so the public (I believe) is generally aware that Ms. Spears looks quite different in reality than when she is plastered with makeup, posed, and Photoshopped in a Candie’s ad or on her own album covers. (Had this been pulled with someone like, say, Victoria Beckham, I think there would be much more of an “ohmygosh!” reaction. Come on – we all know Britney has cellulite and acne and less-than-doll-like thighs. The jig is up, Candie’s, in case you didn’t realize.) Plus the company is only drawing attention to how much they have Photoshopped and digitally manipulated her in this ad (and therefore, we can assume, in all her ads for them up to now) so I’m not sure this is casting them in a good light by them saying “Look at our spokeswoman, Britney!! Isn’t she such a dog in real life?? But she’s proud of it, so yay!” Eye-roll-worthy…to me, it’s just someone else manipulating Britney’s image to get something out of it.
I think she looks great in the BEFORE photos (especially as a woman who’s had kids and is entering her 30’s)…though to be perfectly and utterly honest, what I expect when I open a magazine is something more like the AFTER photos, which (though not reality for all intents and purposes) display a visually appealing perfection, and offer no extraneous flaws that could detract from the brand message. (Except for Ms. Spears and her history, but we’ll leave that for another day.:-)
the Photoshopping vs. what is real? debate rages on (with Jessica Simpson appearing without makeup on the cover of the latest issue of Marie Claire, for instance)…Health Magazine decided on this for their cover for the April 2010 issue:
I didn’t…I was like, “I think I’ve seen her somewhere before..gosh she kinda looks like…no, wait, this lady looks much older…who is this??”
And I’ve seen two of her movies, too. Does this look like the Zooey Deschanel you know? (You know, the cute one, lately from the covers of Lucky Magazine and those sweet and sort of innocent-looking Cotton ads.)
I think you can tell that they definitely laid off the Photoshopping for this cover…and as a result I couldn’t recognize her. Or maybe I just haven’t seen her smiling enough. Or maybe her hair/makeup looks very unlike her. Or maybe I’m just an idiot.
Zooey fans, weigh in! Oh, and Britney fans too – and anyone who wants to talk about Photoshopping people for magazine ads/covers…would love to hear your input too!
Thanks for your thought-provoking question!
xoxox
Carly
What I was struck by with that cover isn't her picture but the fact that HEALTH magazine's main articles are about losing weight…not health. Granted obesity is not healthy, but it just seems like the message we as women are being bombarded with everywhere we look is “LOSE WEIGHT.” That should be our number one goal and obviously we suck at life if we don't.
Sheesh…we get enough of that in Cosmo and Glamour and the “beauty and fashion” mags…why does it have to be the main thing in a health magazine?? And I'm willing to bet that is the focus of every single issue!
I thought it was a woman who “looked” like Zoey honestly …they made her look older in my opinion, lik in her 40's. It's so strange.
I'm a fan of Jessica Simpson's show the Price of Beauty. I think she's honestly trying to make a difference. As far as Britney …of course the real version looks better {maybe minus the bruises and blemishes} because honestly, I do want to look at something pretty ….but as for her body shape and size, it DEFINITELY looks better in the befores …the worst thing about those Candies ads ARE THE SHOES!!! No joking there. They are hideous.
I agree with you that I don't think Brittney doesn't have the mindset to release unretouched photos of herself and turn it into a campaign for natural beauty. It is either a spin by Candies or her Brittney's PR people either after the photos leaked or intentional to promote Brittney as being on the frontline of natural beauty to try to capture more of a female marketplace for both Brittney and Candies.
I am all for photoshopping ads to remove minor flaws, such a bruises and blemishes and even smooth out cellulite bumps to pretty up the package, but completely against distorting the actual body proportions as it promotes an unrealistic goals for young girls who see the picture and do not realize it has been altered and no one really looks like that.
My mother and I just watched Zoey in a fairly recent movie last night…as I'm staring at the close-up of this picture, I can't really tell that it's her at all. She's a gorgeous girl and I'm pretty sure they aren't photoshopping all those lines out of her face or making her eyes bigger in the movies, which leads me to believe they did some kind of reverse-work here to make her look less unique and older. The eyes especially throw me off…right color, but with the lighting they look very small and oddly placed.
As for the Britney photos…really, whatever. I appreciate her chipping in to the cause, and she does look good…but we all know there was some nipping and tucking involved to get that body, so it's still not celebrating real body image in my opinion. Dove's Real Beauty campaign is still my favorite of the better-body-image attempts; I got to meet one of the Dove girls at a conference last fall (her presentation was great), and I think their focus is in the right place to make a difference.
such displays are very welcome by moms of daughters. too easily young girls buy the image in the magazine and fall into habits that are detrimental to their health (mentally and physically) so I applaud ANY honest photographic portrayal by the so-called stars young women look up to/at as the 'look' to achieve.
I recognized right away that it was zoeey, but she's one of my favorites. And I think- hey more power to you (brittney) or anyone who can bare it that way. We're so trained to see flaws on people and think “ew, why did they use them?” that we're blinded by what reality is. We need to get back into a state where we look at REAL people- then we can stop expected the unrealistic
Oh I have a lot to say about this but I will have to come back as it is close to 1:30am and I've just come back from a short camping trip away and I am now sleeptyping!… YES to all that you say!
Of course Britney's body looks better in the touched up photo. But it's fake, and fake just isn't sexy anymore. Her chunky, dimpled thighs looks sexy!
@…love, Maegan, @Cathryn: Thank you! I thought I was nuts for awhile and was doubting my own eyes. Zooey on the Health mag cover looks wrinkled, washed-out, and dumpy – not at all like her usual lovely, striking self. Could they have reverse-shopped her to age her?
Thank you all for weighing in on the Britney/Candie's issue…
Yes, the shoes are HIDEOUS! lol Maegan…:-D
I'm with you gals that Photoshopping is okay to remove blemishes etc. (as Kathryn wrote above), but when you're playing with those fun Liquefy filters and distorting body *proportions* that's sort of stepping into the realm of “unreal.”
Thank you for all your comments!
xoox
Carly
hmm. Britney has a nice enough body to not need to be photoshopped, and I think it's awful that they do it at all. I mean, the untouched version looks far more real and she still looks great! (and I'm NOT a Britney fan. by any means) That said, I highly doubt she really did this to promote “realistic bodies” or “women's rights” or whatever. It probably leaked that the photos were seriously airbrushed and her PR people decided to take it and run.
I figured that second picture was Zooey Deschanel. She looks a bit older, and her eyes look a bit smaller, but whatever…she's still a beautiful girl. I think she's great.
good for her for revealing her real self.
I like Britney's overall shape in the before pictures. I think that they should have erased the blemishes, cellulite, etc, but I don't think that they should've erased her curves too 🙁