Gawker
Beauty product purveyor Dove has finally responded to allegations, first reported in a New Yorker story, that the company retouched photos of the "Real" women in its "Campaign for Real Beauty" ads. Which would make them big hypocrites. But according to a statement from Dove this morning (via its PR agency, Edelman), the New Yorker was wrong. The company even got a quotable refutation from controversy-courting celebrity photographer Annie Leibovitz! Their full denial is after the jump.
Statement from Dove about The New Yorker Article
Dove's mission is to make more women feel beautiful every day by widening the definition of beauty and inspiring them to take great care of themselves. Dove strives to portray women by accurately depicting their shape, size, skin color and age.
The "real women" ad referenced in recent media coverage was created and produced entirely by Ogilvy, the Dove brand's advertising agency, from start to finish and the women's bodies were not digitally altered.
Pascal Dangin worked with photographer Annie Leibovitz (Ogilvy has never employed Mr. Dangin on the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty), who did the photography for the launch of the Dove ProAge campaign, a new campaign within the Campaign for Real Beauty. There was an understanding between Dove and Ms. Leibovitz that the photos would not be retouched - the only actions taken were the removal of dust from the film and minor color correction.
"Let's be perfectly clear - Pascal does all kinds of work - but he is primarily a printer - and only does retouching when asked to. The idea for Dove was very clear at the beginning. There was to be NO retouching and there was not," confirmed Annie Leibovitz, commenting on the ProAge campaign.
Mr. Dangin responded, "The recent article published by The New Yorker incorrectly implies that I retouched the images in connection with the Dove "real women" ad. I only worked on the Dove ProAge campaign taken by Annie Leibovitz and was directed only to remove dust and do color correction - both the integrity of the photographs and the women's natural beauty were maintained."
###
Comments
Please. All photos need retouching before publication. ALL photos.
I don't get what the big deal is. I'm constantly retouching women, and nobody complains about it.
Call me naive about whatever might go on at New Yorker, but it's easier to believe Dove, Ogilvy, Leibowitz and Dangin are liars. But really, so what?
A dusty and color-uncorrected woman could hardly be considered real--or else what is our entire cosmetics industry about?
Sometimes I photoshop my own photos before putting them on Facebook so whatev.
Since almost everything is shot digitally now, dust shouldn't be an issue anymore unless the women are actually dusty rather than the image. Color correction is mandatory, I do it every 6-8 weeks at Bumble and Bumble.
There's a perceptual chasm here that can never be bridged. This is even discussed in the New Yorker article (don't get me started on what tool Dangin is, BTW), the photo is not "the thing", the photo is a representation of "the thing".
Anyone with a cursory understanding of aesthetics understands this. The vast majority of people have no aesthetic vocabulary, therefore they'll never understand that what the camera sees as reality, if left unaltered, can be quite coarse. Just from a textural standpoint, dust, stray hairs, lighting inconsistencies, all of these are things that the eye ignores in real life. But when captured by the camera eye are insurmountable distractions. Therefore they must be "fixed".
Let's not forget the "camera adds ten pounds" conundrum. All those size 14 women in that campaign were probably size 8 in "real" life. If there was cheating in that campaign, it started before one frame was shot.
@lionel-mandrake: Right on.
There is nothing wrong with retouching. In fact more people should do it. PicWash.com offers retouching on the cheap in case any of you want to get some mischa barton cellulite removed or look more like these Real women. People need to get over retouching and embrace it as a super useful technology. 'Nough said.
[www.picwash.com]
This would be a great way for Misha Barton to turn a rippled, shapeless negative into a smoothed out, supple positive.
If I had to see any of the inexplicable leg bruises, stretch marks, or cellulite dimples that I barely notice in real life blown up to billboard size I would probably slit Annie Leibovitz's throat, and I bet all of those "real women" feel the same way. Bring on the retoucher!
@lionel-mandrake: Exactly! I meant to say that, in those exact words. Instead of my dribble. If I wasn't hung-over. Also, my dog ate it.
...yeah, and Letters to Penthouse are really written by out of work sitcom writers. Tell me another one. BTW... those moms are hot! Does anyone know their phone numbers?
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?