That's one helluva diet - lose one rib in the time it takes to change bathing suits!

Apparently Victoria’s Secret is hiring retouchers from the same place as Ralph Lauren, but wherever they come from, someone’s been abusing the deformed Photoshop filter again (comes in the Fashion Freakshow Basics brush and filter pack, right above the tapeworm tool, and below the de-rib filter).

On one hand it’s nice to know that not even Victoria’s Secret models look like Victoria’s Secret models. On the other, much larger hand (we can Photoshop a picture of that, or just wait for VS to get around to it), the point of having models is to give women an idea of what the clothing you’re selling might look like on them. Somewhere out there, we’re sure there are some women with tragic deformities that give them sharply angled hips and 14-inch waists, but we’re not so sure they represent most of the Victoria’s Secret buying audience. We know – even in real life, the Victoria’s Secret girls probably don’t look like the average Victoria’s Secret shopper, but at least they look like they were on the receiving end of genetic fortune instead of a genetic accident.

In the 2nd and 3rd photo it’s not impossible that it could be the result of how the model is posing – we don’t doubt that small waists can exist without Photoshop foolery, but we draw your attention to them to compare just how terrible the Photoshop abuse is in other photos (specifically the pink lace top, blue dress and white bandeau top). Though when we compare a Mario Testino photo of Candice Swanepoel with a Victoria’s Secret photo? Pretty sure those precise, strangely smooth, Gumbyesque curves are difficult to achieve outside of a computer lab.

The sometimes curvy, sometimes slim, always gorgeous Crystal Renn. Despite the appearance of variation in size, each photo is from the same shoot.

Other than Crystal Renn’s smaller shape, the thing that stood out to us most upon going in for the closeup view on Vogue UK is that the models look like real women.

Allow us to explain: we don’t mean that in a “real women have curves” way (real women come in all kinds of shapes, including thin and curveless), but that real women have sharp bones, and freckles, and moles, and underarm folds of skin, and angles where these things can be more or less prominent, and any number of things which are normally Photoshopped away in a quest for the type of aspirational imagery that even the models who are the basis for the images can’t achieve in real life.

Hilary Rhoda's unairbrushed freckles and underarm skin folds. Beautiful.

We don’t highlight any of these things as a negative: even without being airbrushed into CGI quality illustrations, each of the girls has an aspirational quality that would make us buy what they’re selling. Knowing that industrial strength makeup, just the right lighting, and an unachievable body aren’t required to look good in a certain dress gives just enough reality to make us believe in the fantasy of the clothes.

Pressure to be just a bit skinnier for those skinny jeans, now a bit of photoshop on a magazine cover – guys really are starting to understand what women deal with for fashion.

Outside Magazine is more than a few plasticize and plump brushes away from any respectable Photoshop department at your average women’s magazine, but Lance Armstrong is not a fan of the retouching he received on their latest cover nonetheless.

See the blue t-shirt that reads”38. BFD.” (BFD is an acronym for Big F—ing Deal, 38 is Armstrong’s age)? Well, what you probably can’t see in the bottom left corner is a disclaimer that it’s not the actual shirt Armstrong wore for the shoot. The slogan was added after the actual photo.

Judging by his response to Outside Magazine’s question of if he’d seen the disclaimer, “Ask the legendary photog Danny Clinch what he thinks,” it seems that the acknowledgment isn’t enough to satisfy Armstrong.

While we can understand feeling taken for a ride (pardon the pun) when you see words that weren’t there when you sat for a photo, the disclaimer is at least more than most advertisements and women’s magazine covers come with. ELLE recently whittled Rhianna’s waist into oblivion, we all remember the alien praying mantis proportions someone at Ralph Lauren gave to already thin models, and magazines have fessed up to airbrushing super-thin models bigger to make them look healthier. Photoshop over manipulation is becoming a BFD, but is this really the worst of what we’ve seen?

Not long ago there was serious debate over the rail-thin models allowed to walk the runways at various big name designer fashion shows. The same holds true for magazine covers that feature unrealistic body images that are altered and airbrushed before release.

We are happy to report the tables have turned in a recent publication of the British rag, Healthy. The magazine admits to retouching the model’s physique in their April 2010 issue to give her more curves. Editor Jane Druker ‘fessed up to the digital makeover, reportedly saying the magazine “had to put on half a stone (seven pounds)” after Wladyka allegedly showed up to the shoot looking thinner than she had during the casting process. “There were plenty of clothes that we couldn’t put on her because her bones stuck out too much,” Druker told the source. “She looked beautiful in the face, but really thin and unwell. That’s not a reflection of what we do in our magazine, which is about good health.” {Stylelist}

With the super thin aesthetic spreading to guys we’re thrilled at the turnaround, but wonder if the diverse body type movement is really progressing if models feel the need to be so thin in the first place. While Crystal Renn’s recent appearance in the Chanel resort show was celebrated, many have noticed that her famous curves seem to be shrinking.
As much as some like to trot out health as a reason against featuring larger models, being underweight – particularly if it’s as the result of an eating disorder or poor lifestyle choices, can be equally or more dangerous. But in fashion nearly everything comes in cycles, so hopefully we’ll see a return to the 90s supermodels who dominated media with bodies that were thin, but not underweight or starved into the exact same body type. At least it beats the photo butchery in those infamous Ralph Lauren ads.

What do you think? Is photoshopping models to appear larger a step in the right direction, or a move that won’t matter?

In response to German magazine Brigitte’s decision last week to completely replace cover models with “real women” (interpret that as you may), Lagerfeld insisted that only “fat mummies sitting with their bags of crisps in front of the television” are the ones objecting to thin fashion models, insisting also that the size issue is something inherent in society, rather than something brought on by photoshopped magazine covers.

Now, we at Signature9 believe beauty is beauty no matter the size or shape or color, and we certainly don’t agree with Karl’s prognosis — but we can understand his reluctance to accept Brigitte’s strategy as an “answer” to the question of weight in the fashion industry.  Although the attempt of the magazine is commendable, to blame fashion is not the answer: at the end of the day, consumers — not fashion professionals — are the ones in control.

Read the full story {Guardian UK}