<![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> ...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?

SayHeyJay

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> @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.

grrad

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> 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!

City_Dater

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> This would be a great way for Misha Barton to turn a rippled, shapeless negative into a smoothed out, supple positive.

Meatbolz

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]>

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]

dgc223

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> @lionel-mandrake: Right on.

CodePink

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> 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.

I Don't Get It

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> Sometimes I photoshop my own photos before putting them on Facebook so whatev.

roodles

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> A dusty and color-uncorrected woman could hardly be considered real--or else what is our entire cosmetics industry about?

famousauthor

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> 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?

grrad

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> I don't get what the big deal is. I'm constantly retouching women, and nobody complains about it.

Kim Gordon's Panties

]]> <![CDATA[Dove Denies <em>New Yorker</em> Hypocrisy Allegations]]> Please. All photos need retouching before publication. ALL photos.

Buzz Killington

]]>