Hehe, some overzealous photoshopping. :)

Odd looking and cartoonish:(

Reminds me of the mirrors in the fun house at the local fairground, bizarre and amusing to the extreme. I think you would have to be devoid of a ribcage to achieve that look and I honestly thought Ralph Lauren to be a brand with more class than to publish an image such as this!

Oh my gosh! That is just horrifically, ridonkulously funny and grotesque at the same time! Thanks for a good, afternoon pick me up laugh Maya :-D

What I thought was more disturbing was the link in that article to another article about SELF magazine photoshopping Kelly Clarkson. The editor of SELF tries to justify the fact that they photoshopped Clarkson quite a bit, making her look much thinner than she actually is, and equates doing so with color-correcting a photo, or only showing your friends the best photos of yourself on vacation. I think it's particularly awful because SELF pitches itself as a magazine about fitness, trying to empower women to be healthy, not to fit some media-created ideal of attractiveness. So when they get a cover subject who is larger than average, but (SELF claims) works out and is fit, they make her look thinner than she is in real life? The message that sends is pretty much against everything SELF clams it stands for.

For anyone interested, that article is here:
http://jezebel.com/5335022/sel.....-realistic

Steph, that reminded me of a service I heard of on NPR that allows you to submit your vacation pictures and have them professionally photoshopped. I don't just mean routine teeth-whitening, waist-slimming sort of photoshopping, but they will actually photoshop images of celebrities into the picture so you can lie and say you met them! Doubt that it's very effective but still ridiculous.

Anyway, I think the sad truth behind Kelly Clarkson's photoshop job is that there is a high probability that fewer people would buy it if her un-photoshopped body was on the cover. Everyone says they want to see "real" women on magazines and in catalogs, but I suspect if that were actually implemented, we might find that it has the opposite effect. In this case, women will see a skinny KC on the cover and want to learn more about how she maintains her body. If they just saw some woman who looks exactly like they already do, what's the point? I'm not condoning this or anything, just trying to acknowledge the sad reality.

Oh that Ralph Lauren ad is too much. Barbie is more proportional than the model in the ad. I love Cory Doctorow from Boing Boing, I am glad he didn't back off.

Umm, weird. The RL photo *really* doesn't look right. Good grief.

I also like the first comment in the Yahoo article: "...Anyone paying attention to the hideous clothes she's wearing? lol"

I saw that picture recently too and it's just incredibly sick. So disappointed in RL...This photoshop thing is really getting out of hand.

That is so darn funny. I can spend hours laughing at the photoshopping mistakes on Photoshop Disasters - I guess it just means there is more work that ought to go to actual graphic designers like you who know to avoid foreshortening mistakes!

I think it's a common and sad misconception that the damage is done by designers. Most designers know better than to mangle some woman's hands, attach one person's head on another person's body, or try to restructure a woman's ribcage. It's usually the marketing department who makes these idiotic requests. They do not understand that the key to a successful image is to TAKE A GOOD AND APPROPRIATE PICTURE in the first place. To them, anything can be faked using Photoshop. Every single image that gets published is Photoshopped to some extent. The ones that end up on Photoshop Disasters are the result of marketing professionals who want the hands of one woman, the chin of another, and the waist whittled down to the size of a noodle. There is one image there of a women or a girl holding a cat that are clearly from two different sources. Why the @!$% couldn't they just take a picture of a woman holding a cat? It's not because the designer is bad at using Photoshop, it's because Photoshop has limitations that everyone is too lazy to acknowledge.

"Why can't you just Photoshop it?" I loathe that question. I could never be a retoucher for that reason unless it was basic color correction.

Ewwww. That's just hideous! What scares me, though, is not that grown women with healthy self-esteem will find this upsetting; we can all look and laugh. But how about a 9 year-old girl who doesn't necessarily understand things like photoshopping or what a real woman's body is supposed to look like...?

That is creepy looking

Thank you Mac,

I'm old enough to understand how the images in magazines are not real life but I do worry about my very young children growing up in this culture. How are they supposed to develop healthy body images?

My friends little girl, who is seven, asks if she looks fat in her clothes and pre teen girls are starting to develop eating disorders.

Ralph Lauren have issued an apology over the image
http://www.handbag.com/fashion.....hop-row/v1

A designer may not be directly responsible for the production of images, however it is done in their name so they should be held accountable.

You know, I had not seen this or heard about it, and my first reaction is to be disturbed and angry. How many young girls will begin thinking that this is what constitutes beauty and do God knows what to try to achieve the same look? Not right.

I have a 6 year old girl at work who has stopped eating yoghurt and milk because she doesn't want to get fat!
Big (sarcastic) round of applause to those at ralph lauren who are promoting this attitude! x
edit i hope someone from the company reads this

Aha. Food for thought. How do you explain the use of photo shopping in media to children? I guess I would just say it how it is. It’s not all real. The same way that centuries ago, artists had to idealize the proportions of their subject matter, thereby painting people in “perfect” ways instead of representing them in the true way that they are. Our methods have just become more sophisticated.

Hard one with the kids though.

I think there must really be a dearth of good role models for kids if they're trying to emulate some chick in a Ralph Lauren ad. I guess "role models" aren't necessarily people you would want to look like, but it still makes me think that there is a deeper issue here if *this* is what little girls are aspiring to.

I don't know. I grew up during the supermodel renaissance, when heroin chic was the "in" thing and Calvin Klein Obsession commercials regularly interrupted Full House, and I haven't been too scarred by the concept. I am also not a parent. So perhaps I am just not as sensitive to this issue.

I think the issue with children is not relating to this one image, but more the media as a whole. It's not only the sizism but the agism to.

Unfotunatly, many (not all) girls are growing up in households where the mother is constantly dieting and this definitly impacts on the childs view of body image.

Many of my 6 & 7 year olds would choose a role model like gabriella from high school musical, posh spice etc