Debenhams chooses un-airbrushed model photos

Cameraman

This article talks about their decision to use an un-airbrushed model photo, rather than the "perfect" retouched one. Sort of along the same lines as the Dove ads (mind you - they're still using a model).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1287377/Debenhams-bans-airbrush-swimwear-ad-campaign--lays-bare-sneaky-tricks-trade.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0rDUwroy9

thebaz

Cameraman wrote: »

This article talks about their decision to use an un-airbrushed model photo, rather than the "perfect" retouched one. Sort of along the same lines as the Dove ads (mind you - they're still using a model).

good call - if a model is beautifull , she should not need photoshop to enhance her perfection and create something unrealistic - and blah in my opinion

mehfesto

Bit of a stunt in my eyes.
There's no real need to do it, or at least no need to make a big deal out of it.
A way of tapping into that 'real beauty' market that Dove made a killing from.

melekalikimaka

i dont mind it, done properly, its much better than a girl with crows feet, veiny legs etc. whenever this issue comes up theres always extreme comparisons

5uspect

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i dont mind it, done properly, its much better than a girl with crows feet, veiny legs etc. whenever this issue comes up theres always extreme comparisons

Extreme comparisons are the hallmark of the Daily Fail.

melekalikimaka

5uspect wrote: »

Extreme comparisons are the hallmark of the Daily Fail.

red tops, gotta love em

plasticman3327

Looks better in the untouched one anyway.

Her legs just look wrong in the 'shooped one and he sholder odd. Although i'm sure they did that on purpose to make their point

magicbastarder

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i dont mind it, done properly, its much better than a girl with crows feet, veiny legs etc. whenever this issue comes up theres always extreme comparisons

the comparison they've shown is far from extreme, though.