|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
Unretouched Lena Dunham by Annie Leibovitz
Jezebel claim that, only two hours after they offered $10.000 for unretouched images of Lena Dunham taken by famous Annie Leibovitz for the February issue of US Vogue, they received six allegedly unaltered images. (So much for non-disclosure agreements, mutual trust and discretion!  )     All retouched images can be seen here: http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/l … gue-cover/ Feb 01 14 09:23 pm Link That first image. The before looks so blurry and soft focus and the after is so sharp and even has texture that wasn't in the before pretty amazing. Feb 01 14 11:10 pm Link I'm guessing the before image of the first picture is just a quick cellphone picture -that was being displayed on a computer. Feb 02 14 03:29 am Link NYC fine art nudes wrote: That's the only way it can be explained.. Feb 02 14 03:56 am Link Scribbler wrote: Are you having a giraffe? Feb 02 14 06:44 am Link Part of me is wondering if the "before" shots are actually real or if someone took the "after" shots and retouched them to make them appear to be worse. Especially with the first one. Feb 02 14 06:50 am Link I don't think that the "before" part was made by Photoshop, chances are, like somebody stated before, that one of many crew members took them by they cellphone. However, no matter how tempting $10.000 can be (especially in this economy!), I don't approve such an act and I think that every part of the team - from super-star photographer to electrician who checks the cables - should be that: a part of the TEAM. Feb 02 14 10:04 am Link The cheek thinning is SOOOOOOOO obvious in the top pic!!! Pitiful!! Feb 02 14 10:10 am Link I worked with Annie's team (ONCE- for a Vanity Fait shoot) and I can't imagine any of them doing such a thing... They are truly a well-oiled machine- and it's not like no one would notice someone with a cell phone shooting an image- much less EXACTLY the same framing as a final shot? C'MON! REALLY??!? Shooting in NYC, (as I imagine this shoot was) it would have been all of Annie's trusted local assistants- not like when she flies out, and shoots in other cities (she brings a team along- but locals also add into the mix....) Maybe these came from the retouch house.... but I seriously doubt Annie's crew had anything to do with it.... Feb 02 14 10:34 am Link it will be interesting to hear who leaked the unedited photos...it's pretty scary if it was someone on the crew. When I was assisting, I worked with a celebrity photographer. This was before digital so we shot polaroids. One of my duties was to make sure ALL the polaroids were accounted for. It was the fear that someone would leak them to the internet. Feb 02 14 10:35 am Link I like Lena's response to this: It makes a lot os sense She added, "A fashion magazine is like a beautiful fantasy. Vogue isn't the place that we go to look at realistic women, Vogue is the place that we go to look at beautiful clothes and fancy places and escapism and so I feel like if the story reflects me and I happen to be wearing a beautiful Prada dress and surrounded by beautiful men and dogs, what’s the problem? If they want to see what I really look like go watch the show that I make every single week." The whole thing may also be a publicity stunt. Whole thing could have been setup by the publicist. Feb 02 14 11:17 am Link First of all I will say that I'm in no way in favour of the excessive use of photoshop to substantially alter images of models. However, I fail to see the issue with these images. The woman is a celeb, not a model. The images are not promoting some kind of beauty product or treatment. She looks better for sure in the retouched versions, but the 'improvements' are not so drastic that they make her unrecognisable. It seems to me that whoever retouched them did pretty much what would be expected: they cleaned them up and made her look a little brighter and fresher than the original rather unflattering images did. Or is this really all about the fact that AL managed to take a few somewhat unflattering images of a not very pretty celeb and got paid for it? Just my $0.02 etc. etc. Feb 02 14 11:24 am Link Zorka wrote: Agreed. Discretion is paramount in this business. Feb 02 14 01:44 pm Link Interesting. They moved the train station sidewalk an entire square of concrete forward. Feb 02 14 03:59 pm Link Artifice wrote: I also noticed that. I wonder how and how long it took... Feb 03 14 03:09 am Link Considering Lena's look I'm surprised at how subtle the editing was (compared to some images of Jennifer Lawrence, for example) and am quite glad they were reserved in the editing. IMO changing the dress line to hide her armpits, brightening eyes/contouring etc. are all part of the normal post process and not an exercise in "Let's make this girl look perfect or something she's not" Feb 03 14 12:41 pm Link Opens up a can of worms ' do photographers rely too much on retouching'. Feb 04 14 06:15 am Link Rebecca Christine wrote: i would think changing the dress line to hide her armpits, brightening eyes, etc are all part of the normal before i take the picture process. Feb 04 14 10:12 am Link I honestly have never heard of Lena Dunham or knew anything about her before this whole Jezebel retouching story broke (I just saw in the replies that she has a show, that's all I know about her). Feb 04 14 08:40 pm Link i guess theses types of threads aren't newsworthy anymore.... Feb 06 14 08:17 am Link |
