Why 'Reverse Retouching' is Just as Damaging as Photoshopped Slimdowns

Why 'Reverse Retouching' is Just as Damaging as Photoshopped Slimdowns

 

Magazines begin to bulk up models' bodies

It's no secret that magazines, advertisers and photographers make a habit of retouching models' bodies--sometimes beyond recognition. Using Photoshop and a variety of transformative airbrushing tactics, women's waistlines and hips are slimmed down to impossible proportions, thighs and calves are restricted to the same width, and arms, well, let's just say that they can go missing altogether.

The unattainable ideals have left a sour taste in the mouths of women as young as 14 years old. Last month, fed up teen Julia Bluhm petitioned Seventeen magazine to begin incorporating images of "real girls" onto its pages. Editor-in-Chief Ann Shoket responded by creating the Body Peace Treaty, an 8-point pledge that promised to "never change girls’ body or face shapes" and insisted that the magazine would only feature "real girls and models who are healthy."

[Vogue Bans Underweight, Underage Models]

The move was no doubt a minor step towards the solution of a major problem, but now the everyday woman thumbing through the pages of a fashion magazine has an entirely different battle to fight--the battle of the bulge. A recent report revealed that the latest trend to take the editorial and advertising world by storm is altering models to appear larger and curvier than they truly are--a big leap from the digital disappearing acts consumers are so used to seeing.

Called "reverse retouching," the practice can result in the subject having bigger cleavage, "toned arms, and fuller faces," according to top celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch. While the process is certainly a unique approach to (arguably) "accepting" healthier body images, the fact that there are any alterations at all still has some women hot under the collar.