The Daily Mail’s breathless over the fact that Jessica Alba was airbrushed for her Campari calendar shoot, shot by Mario Testino.
But let’s skip feigning shock and go straight for the fun:
Can you spot all the many digital changes performed in this before and after?
Just brownie points as the prize - though if someone can point out one we haven’t noticed, maybe something of your choice from our local Starbucks can be arranged.
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 2:41PM
Camel toe removed, lowered her knee (wtf?), made her front leg longer, MUCH thinner waist, Victoria Beckham chest, slimmed her calf, bigger hair, her thighs (back and front) have been slimmed, clavicles more defined (the right one has been done reallly bad), all over body tan, something that makes her shoulder look disjointed, made the right of her body much more shapely, different reflection in the water, completely different background, made the clothes stand out more..
Wait a minute, a more difficult question would be what has NOT been changed?
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 2:53PM
Also, her right hand is missing, her lipstick is darker, the image in the pool is completely different, here eyes are looking in an entirely different direction, her neck seems to have been shortened, they added a bit of wind in her hair... we could go on forever.
posted by AmandaMichele
Dec 08, 2008 3:20PM
the only time i have ever seen her smile and they have photochopped it!!!! she looks natural and pretty in the first and shes a bony mess in the second.
posted by marichon
Dec 08, 2008 8:13PM
Yes this is crazy, but it happens all the time. Just so everyone knows (esp. self conscious teenagers, etc.!) This happens ALL THE TIME. I used to be a photographer's assistant. Anytime you see a photo of an actress or model, please be aware while she may very well be gorgeous in real life, it is photoshop that makes her perfect. Acne scars, back fat, saggy boobs, you name it, photoshop can fix it!
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 9:55PM
Why did it take to 27 for someone to note these are not the same shot?
Yes, it's clear from the first shot how much they've whittled her waist and blended the skin and the changes in color in the bacjground. But there was no photoshop involved in changing her expression! It's a DIFFERENT SHOT.
posted by bubs
Dec 08, 2008 10:52PM
Two different shots? Really? Wow, you must have a sweet pair gullible glasses. I work in the fashion industry and can assure you these are not two different images. It's called retouching. It happens ALL the time. And they use a fancy program called Photoshop and get paid a trillion dollars to make photos look perfect – especially in advertising. Wake up and smell the Campari, these are not two different shots. And yes, Mrs Alba does look the best natural.
Thanks for the post. More people need to see what's happening behind the scenes. It's brilliant.
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 11:20PM
Bubs, you're wrong.
These ARE two different shots. The lighting is clearly different (look at her armpit, look at her legs, collar bone, neck.) Photoshop can only do so much, but re-creating lighting effects is REALLY difficult. They are clearly two different shots (and in reality, the "after" photo is probably a LOT of shots composed together.)
I'm a professional retoucher (Note: I did NOT retouch for this campaign) and I can assure you that EVERYTHING you see in print is retouched. Every model, every campaign, EVERY little thing you see in a magazine is retouched. Why do you think celebrities can star in so many campaigns now, versus models? They look just as stunning, beautiful, long, lean, but it's all due to Photoshop.
Same with the 'return of the supers': the only reason models are now battling for campaigns with celebrities (and former supermodels) is due to the power of Photoshop. Otherwise, you would see what these celebrities really look like, which is usually 'normal'... and the public does not respond well to normal. A conversation for another time, but yes, Jessica Alba's "after" shot is a different shot from the 'before' shown here.
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 11:43PM
thank you 27... i thought it was so obvious these photos are not the same, yet there are 26 insipid comments pointing out the differences in two different photos.
yes, photo retouching exists. yes, probably every photo in an advertisement is retouched. but do all of you really believe that every single detail of the first photograph has been digitally manipulated to result in the second picture? the poses are the same. retouching here looks like they've slimmed her thighs and waist, and maybe done something with her boobs.
i seriously doubt the first photo was retouched to change her facial expression, the angles at which her legs cross, her hairstyle, alter the shadows on her shoulder completely, change the whole shape of her armpit and transform the entire background. i don't work in the fashion industry like 29, but i have great vision and a fully functional brain.
you people need to get a grip. (except 27. you're cool.) fashionista could post about how forever 21 sells a blue hobo bag that is the same size as a black givenchy shopper and you all would be like OMG FOREVER 21 TOTALLY STOLE THE IDEA TO SELL PURSES FROM GIVENCHY AND I AM TOTALLY NOT SHOPPING THERE UNTIL NEXT WEEK!!!
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 11:56PM
I agree with 27 and others that these might not be the same shot. However, for those really snarky ones who put down the first 26 people, this is still a good illustration of retouching, as Alba's body seemed to morph into a slimmer, tanner, and more defined version of herself. Despite the possibility that they may be different shots, there is a very obvious difference in her body.
posted by guest
Dec 09, 2008 6:07AM
Wether they are two different shots or not its still very obvious that the picture has been retouched tremendously as are the rest of the campaign shots. I am a makeup artist and I see the fantasy that is created throw hair, makeup, lighting, retouching almost on a daily basis, I am very glad that everyday people can see for themselves that celebs/models are not perfect
posted by guest
Dec 09, 2008 2:39PM
Totally unnecessary to retouch this gorgeous beauty. The Photoshop effects make the airbrushing they used to do in the 60's pale by comparison. Creating a plastic Barbi doll image of this woman certainly contributes to establishment of poor body images on the part of adolescent and young adult women resulting in: eating disorders, unnecessary plastic surgery, botox, and depression. There should be some publishing industry guidelines.
posted by guest
Dec 13, 2008 12:16AM
Kudos to everyone who, like #26 who is hoping that anyone who may not be fully aware of the industries going's on might read this commentary...
As a model I can say that I, as well as all of my model friends, have flaws. That's right - FLAWS! Thanks to photoshoppers, we create a mirage for everyone out there, and unfortunately some people don't bother questioning the illusion.
posted by guest
Dec 31, 2008 10:15AM
I think those are two different photos with Jessica Alba posing in a ridiculously similar pose!!! Clearly the other one is digitally manipulated already but it's true the photoshop can only go so far. Just look at the position of the hair. And the unflattering lighting.
posted by guest
Aug 20, 2009 3:42PM
I agree that is a different shot. They have NOT used photoshop to change her expression, change the placing of her knee's, change the whole angle of her head (look at her neck on the right of the photo). Just because this website implies they have, doesn't mean they actually have. Also her hair looks completely different. But apart from that is highly retouched, yes.
I think she looks better in the first photo for sure. Also no-one seems to have pointed out yet: They made her clothes look as though they fit her like a glove, they got rid of all the creases on the shorts.
And why did they make her boobs look like implants?? I am utterly confused.
Seriously Discounted Furla Bags!…»
Great deals on handbags!…»
Up to 70% off Fall 2009!…»
Up to 75% Off Bags, Shoes & Wallets!…»
Up to 70% off!…»
Fall Samples!…»
Up to 90% off retail!…»
Last March, a few designers embraced the one off ad. Ads are expensive, and if you've got the momentum of a Rodarte or a Phillip Lim, unnecessary (for now). Unless of course the economy tanks. One of the designers who gave the idea a shot, Zac Posen, shot this ad… Read More
I know a bit about clothes and maybe kind of a lot about shoes, but when it came to sunglasses, I was clueless. Until last week when I spent the morning at Silver Lining Opticians. It's a hole in the wall on Thompson Street run by Jordan Silver and Erik… Read More
Wow...there are def some passionate people on here! Anyway, I think the girls look cute. Nothing r...
guest #9. totally agree. even if the thing is pretty ugly, at least fashioninsta is listening/tryi...
#9. all of our advertorials are clearly marked "WEBVERTORIAL" & obviously don't have a comments sec...
first of all, that thing is pretty hideous. who wants to wear tights around their neck? i get the co...
boo to advertorials.......
i love it. i think i will try this but with more bunching and less ribbon. maybe i'll just make a ne...
I agree with guest 6. Maybe the sheer tights would bunch/ruffle more?...
i love it. i think i will try this but with more bunching and less ribbon. maybe i'll just make a ne...
are those digits covered in the sephora opi nail polish in taxi? :)...
Now you too can look like you're wearing Bedazzled tights around your neck......
posted by guest
Dec 08, 2008 2:30PM
Aside from completely changing her body they totally altered the background! I mean why bother shooting it on location if you're going to do that?!