health magazine airbrushes "too thin" model to appear "healthy weight"

[BlaqueKatt]

article here

first they say they added half a stone(7 pounds)
then later it says they added 15-20 KG(33-44 pounds)
that's a huge discrepancy-from looking at the images I'd say the 30-40 looks closer to accurate as the model claims to have a 24 inch waist-at 5'5" I only had a 24 inch waist when I was anorexic and weighed 97 pounds.....
info found on model is she's 5'10" 32" bust, 24" waist and 35" hips

either way their claim of "she looked fine the week before the shoot, she must not have eaten for a few days-we can't control their health" is bull$hit-no one loses 7-44 pounds in a week. Why not just hire a model with a healthy weight, don't manipulate the photos to make an emaciated model "look healthy"

this is a health magazine-they should be promoting health NOT image.

bonus points the cover she's on has the headlines:
Carbs don't make you fat!
and
Lose 10 pounds no need to diet-we show you how!
(is the answer photoshop?)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Honestly that woman looks too thin to me to be attractive. She's lacking weight on her arms and legs, even her midriff isn't very sexy. I don't know why models need to be so tiny.

[BlaqueKatt]

I don't know why models need to be so tiny.

honest answer-lazy designers-it's easy to design clothing to look good on a hangar(which these girls are)-just cut it the way you've drawn it-if you have a woman with say, breasts and hips you have to adjust to get the fabric to hang right-and it will flatter more body types-this designer explains it pretty well-unlike the people saying "oh it's due to gay men thinking the hottest body is that of a 12 year-old boy"-nope sorry gay male=/=pedophile

and most women do not have an hourglass figure

A study of over 6,000 women carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University around 2005 found that 46% were banana (rectangular), just over 20% pear, just under 14% apple, and 8% hourglass

[Ree]

Why not just hire a model with a healthy weight, don't manipulate the photos to make an emaciated model "look healthy"

They airbrush to make the heavy look thin.

I don't really see much of a difference.

It's done all the time in advertising and photo shoots to get the best result possible.

They also use artificial forms of light and makeup to get better results.

Airbrushing is just one more photographic tool.

[BlaqueKatt]

They airbrush to make the heavy look thin.

I don't really see much of a difference.

both are wrong-they want to add warnings or some sort of symbol to magazines and advertisements to signify they have been altered.

People have flaws-even fashion model-however young impressionable girls and boys see these images-don't know they are manipulated and develop unhealthy expectations of themselves or the opposite gender.

From the article

"There's a fundamental difference between using camera work to make someone look polished, and changing the shape and size of someone's body in order to portray them looking differently, to conform to whatever ideal"

-this was from a woman that works with eating disorder victims

"Retouching is getting increasingly out of hand. Most people can't tell how much is being used, so they are aspiring to unattainable fantasy images. "

-this was from the director of a modeling agency-that also said they should've used a model that fit the criteria, not make the one they hired fit by digital deceit.

If you want a size 10 model-hire a size 10 model, don't make a size 4 into a size 10, that's insulting and misrepresentation.

maybe people who have trouble selling a house should retouch the image to make it into a mansion-after all "it's just a tool to get the best results"

Oh wait that would be unethical and possibly illegal, but it's ok to do it with people-WTF?

[Hobbs]

Katt, they're not selling the people, hun, so that's not even a good comparison.

My wondering is...they altered it to make her appear healthier...how does that lead to an unhealthy view of someone's body?

[Lace Neil Singer]

It just seems pointless to me; why not hire a size ten model in the first place, rather than hiring a size six and then retouching her afterwards? Just seems to me like a lot of unnecessary effort, like hiring a pale model then airbrushing on a tan afterwards.

[McDreidel09]

Not to mention that it is way more expensive to do retouching. I remember watching America's Next Top Model and one of the girls gained weight, but not enough to get her into "plus sized". For one photo shoot, where her belly was bared, they had to do retouching. Tyra told her that people wouldn't hire her because it is much more expensive to do re-touching.

Wouldn't it just be much more economical to hire the size ten model? It's not like they aren't out there.

[Boozy]

The article say that they had already hired this model. She showed up the day of the shoot looking much thinner than the week before during casting. At that point, it would have been more cost-prohibitive to reschedule the shoot than to move forward and add some pounds in re-touching.

It's unlikely that she lost 20 or so pounds in a week, but it's not at all uncommon for a woman to be retaining a great deal of water at certain times during her cycle. The model may have been bloated during the casting call, making her appear rounder and healthier than she actually was.

Here's a quote from the article:

"Rather than take a chance on a different size model who actually fits the criteria for a shoot, it's much easier for magazine editors and casting directors to book a girl who is a known quantity in the industry, even if she might be slightly too slim or large for a job, and then retouch her later."

Modelling isn't the hardest job in the world. but nor is it the easiest. Magazine shoots can cost thousands of dollars an hour in wages for the photographers, lighting techs, stylists, etc. You want a model with a good reputation and who doesn't need much coaching. You want to get that shoot done as soon as possible.

That's just one reason why someone might hire a thin model and make them look larger (or vice versa).

[Fryk]

I think that Boozy's right, generally speaking. However, SOMEONE should have sensed the irony coming their way when they did this for a magazine called HEALTHY.

[tropicsgoddess]

Honestly that woman looks too thin to me to be attractive. She's lacking weight on her arms and legs, even her midriff isn't very sexy. I don't know why models need to be so tiny.

I agree with you . Years ago it was good for a model to have curves like Marilyn Monroe, but now models look skinnier than a heroine junkie. Sad. I still don't understand why the modeling industry wants these walking skeletons on the covers of magazines and on runways?