Dolly magazine publishes non-retouch edition
ACP’s teen mag Dolly has produced a campaigning body image edition in which is says that none of the models and personalities featured have been Photoshopped.
Miranda Kerr, Kate Ritchie, Delta Goodrem Natalie Bassingthwaighte, Jessica Mauboy and surfer Laura Enever are among those featured.
Dolly editor Gemma Crisp said: “Negative body image is at an all-time high in Australia and many people are blaming the media for using unrealistic, air-brushed images. We decided to ditch the airbrushing to show teenage girls the reality of what they’re constantly comparing themselves to.”
However, the announcement from the magazine does contain one caveat: “The only images with any retouching are those already altered before being supplied to Dolly.”
Crisp discussed the issue on Nine’s Today Show this morning.
Earlier this year Dolly was one of the magazines targeted by the ACCC over allegedly miseleading ads it was carrying for premium phone line services.
Linkedin
Does that include not photoshopping the front cover so Kristen Stewart is on a brick wall background?
User ID not verified.
Perhaps this is more about reducing their prepress bill than about positive body image.
User ID not verified.
I think it’s a great idea. What a pity people have to find a cynical comment to post. What have you done lately to make things better for anything other than your bank account fellas?
User ID not verified.
However all the advertising, which makes up most of the human imagery, has been retouched.
User ID not verified.
A good idea, but “The only images with any retouching are those already altered before being supplied to Dolly” makes me sceptical. I don’t know what the ratio of supplied v. Dolly generated photos is… but I do wonder how many celebrities allow images of themselves into publication which are not carefully managed to ensure they “look their best”, airbrushing and all.
User ID not verified.
Ben, it’s hardly cynicism. Knowing how much retouching goes into the mag – and how much it has cost in the past – it’s a valid point, particularly now that ACP is being run by the staple-counters.
It’s a fine idea, but I think you’re naive if you’re sure it’s completely altruistic.
User ID not verified.
A great step in the right direction. Now all we need is an edition with no supplied re-touch-ups as well. Then they’d REALLY hit the mark.
User ID not verified.
Is this just a one-off for this edition?
That sounds like a stunt.
How about committing to doing it from now on?
User ID not verified.
DOLLY FOLLY
I’ve studied and worked full-time in the advertising industry for about 10 years. I’ve also been involved in the modeling industry. Trust me, there is a lot of ‘manipulation’ that can and will be done to images before they are published – not to mention good photography/lighting/etc. It will be very interesting to see how ‘real’ these real images are.
User ID not verified.
I’ve worked in the modeing and adertising industry for over a decade so I know, first hand, about ‘airbrushing’ and ‘retouching. This is such a blatant publicity stunt and angers me no end.
Firstly, ‘no retouching’ does not include all the airbrushed advertisements supplied to the magazine.
Secondly ‘no retouchng’ does not stop the magazine from using skinny models with flattering lighting/makeup/camera work etc.
Thirdly, many images used in magazines are ‘stock photos’ – so will he same rules apply to them?
And finally, all my years working in advertising agencies taught me that there are numerous ways to ‘manipulate’ images, without ‘airbrushing’ them so to speak.
User ID not verified.
I think it is a great idea, but agree, it would be a lot more powerful if it represented a new direction for the magazine, rather than just being a one-off.
I wonder what “retouching” actually means though. An average shot can look a lot better by just adjusting the light balance and tweaking the colour a little. No airbrush or cloning tool needed.
User ID not verified.