![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1038951-100x100.png\")
As the link says, this is pretty much par for the course in the industry. It is like the posts from a week ago about artists lip syncing in concert, we all know things like this happen. It is better for them to admit it and have the story die then keep denying it. Though I guess if they keep denying it people will potentially buy more magazines and this is drawing attention to the magazine.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-939413-100x100.png\")
This. Is. Absolutely amazing.
Hang on, I have to pick my jaw up off the ground.
I knew that her hips were fine... I never bothered looking at the rest of her body. I can't stop laughing. This is epic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-529488-100x100.png\")
LOL wow that is ridiculous. I was going to say if that is Demi Moore she needs to eat because her arms look horrendous - but that was probably shopped too.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53958-100x100.png\")
Wait - those are my cousin Edna's arms!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-410094-100x100.png\")
Oh my god. That's.... I don't have words.
It's sick, is what it is. Absolutely sick. How could ANYONE think that was a good idea? Demi Moore is still thin and attractive, and yet that had to cut and past her onto a model? If I was the model, I'd sue them for it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Guess that photographer doesn't have to donate $5000 to charity.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523087-100x100.png\")
It's still a shop though. That isn't even Demi's body! It's a horribly big, bad, botched shop. So yeah, he should still pay up and Demi needs to admit that, once and for all, that photo is doctored.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-86968-100x100.png\")
I think he still should. They did find the original photo, they just never were Demi Moore's hips to begin with. Plus it'd be good PR for him.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
I can't even begin to defend W, nor do I want to. But the Pop Culture Madness link has what has to be the most awful photo of Demi Moore, and it seems that it was chosen for being absolutely the most awful. Most women aren't attractive when they roll out of bed in the morning. All the things that men or other women like, that's through the effort of makeup, facials, cremes, moisturizers, and waxing. Women of all ages do these things to either a) stay young b) look younger or c) avoid looking like Cher.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1415284-100x100.png\")
I'd like to think that I'm the most attractive first thing in the morning.... usually because I'm well rested and ready to make myself tired again! ;)
I think the only thing that keeps my sanity nowadays is knowing that what the fashion industry defines as \"sexy and attractive\" is often nowhere near what most men define as \"sexy and attractive\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-214940-100x100.png\")
Oh, Pecan. You so often have such thoughtful, observant comments, and then sometimes you say stuff like this that makes me so sad.
NONE of the things I am attracted to in a woman come from \"makeup, facials, cremes, moisturizers, and waxing\". Most of my friends are not attracted to those things in women, and I fully plan on only being in relationships where those are not prerequisites applied to me.
Do you really believe that to be so globally true? Like I said, I know it's not among my social circle, and I would really like to believe that the majority of all people are likewise not that shallow.
\"Most women aren't attractive when they roll out of bed in the morning. All the things that men or other women like, that's through the effort of makeup, facials, cremes, moisturizers, and waxing.\"
Surely it makes sense to compare Photoshopped fake Demi with un-made-up natural Demi. Otherwise you're just showing what makeup can do next to what photoshop can do.
Make-up is no more natural than Photoshop really. I don't understand why people cry over distortion of the female image on beauty magazine covers, and then cover their faces with makeup whenever they go out.
These people are right up there with politicians who say one thing and then a year later say something completely different. It's like they don't know of this invention called \"the internet\" where people with nothing better to do will out their bullshit. And they keep doing, as though people can't just dig up archived footage or photos. It's adorable.
\"The ideal woman is both fatless and boneless, like a chicken breast.\"
No. At least chicken breast is made of meat. There is no meat in those \"ideal women\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1471334-100x100.png\")
But...but... boobs! Is the ideal woman not supposed to have them? Aren't they mostly made out of fatty tissue?
Or are all ideal women supposed to get implants.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
Designers don't want a woman's curves messing up the lines of their clothing. (I forget which designer actually said that.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
Those body parts don't sell fashion designed clothing usually displayed on anorexic models...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
They use anorexic female models because they can't get 12 year old boys to walk in heels.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-17616-100x100.png\")
Ignoring all of the general thoughts on society when a woman's body has to be photoshopped and airbrushed to seem attractive...
The part that I find disturbing is that Demi Moore apparently claimed that to be her own body? Did I misread that?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1436661-100x100.png\")
She sent out a tweet with the photo saying, \"Here is the original image people my hips were not touched don't let these people bullshit you!\"
So, yeah, she definitely implied it was her with the \"my hips\" part of that.
Go ahead, Demi and W . . . tell us that Demi just copied the model's pose in the same dress. I could use a good raucous chortle today. :)
Oh wow...I just went and read back through her Twitter. She's really quite defensive about it. I don't see this ending well for her.
I think the photographer claimed it was the original photo - which is weird since obviously it can't be the original photo since it seems to have come from another person.
Photographer said it wasn't original.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-429538-100x100.png\")
WHO RUNS BARTERTOWN!?
Demi Moore runs Bartertown.
Not shit! Energy!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1308790-100x100.png\")
see I knew there was something more wrong with that photo. Demi's head looks too large for that body and the scale just seems off.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1512420-100x100.png\")
Then how do you explain Hayden Panettiere?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1314487-100x100.png\")
Ahahahahha, omg, that's awesome!
I don't know why I'm so amused, maybe because I loathe DM as an attention whore who never missed an opportunity to take her clothes off for the camera? And not her bod isn't good enough for W? I don't know if that'd be considered irony, but it's certainly a very public bitchslap.
Ahahahahha, omg, that's awesome!
I don't know why I'm so amused, maybe because I loathe DM as an attention whore who never missed an opportunity to take her clothes off for the camera? And now her bod isn't good enough for W?
I don't know if that'd be considered irony, but it's certainly a very public bitchslap.
I have no idea how that happened.
Déjà vu! There's been a change in the Matrix!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-399053-100x100.png\")
Well Kutcher can always take some pictures with the camera's he's always hamming up with - that would settle this...
or not....
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1304131-100x100.png\")
Oh god, no! Don't make me watch more of those irritating commercials.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-263390-100x100.png\")
Saw comments on other sites saying it's not the same photo... just a similar pose. Really? Casting the exact same shadow with her foot? And the same shoes on the people in the front rows? Hard to imagine going through the trouble of recreating those things so precisely.
This is one of the weirdest things ever. Seriously. Photoshopping away a celebrity's bumps, lumps and blemishes is one thing. Putting their head on an entirely different body... this is a new one.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523258-100x100.png\")
You forget that TV Guide did the same thing with Oprah. They put her head on the body of a white woman & darkened up the body.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523408-100x100.png\")
The magazine cover doesn't have any of the runway stuff on it, that's just up there from superimposing the runway shot. The magazine cover has just a plain, white background.
I'm not 100% convinced that it is the same photo, though I agree it's suspiciously similar. That dress is highly structured, and would look pretty much the same on any person within a small range of body sizes. However, I wouldn't put it past an art director to do crap like this, since it's not uncommon. Anybody remember when TV Guide put Oprah's head on Debbie Reynolds' body?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523449-100x100.png\")
I agree, if you follow the link, the photos are definitely different. Slightly different poses and the dress isn't moving as it is in the runway shot. Thats not to say that they didn't take a pic of the woman in the 2nd shot standing still but then you could just as easily say they had DM put the dress on and take the same pose.
Not a Photoshop expert, but I noticed two things: a) the neckline and b) the glow of the lights down the center of the dress.
So they're saying that the neckline draped in exactly the same way and created nearly identical cleavage on both women? And the lights from both the runway and the photo shoot glinted off the dress in exactly the same way?
Actually, that dress is skin tight and/or bound so that whatever flesh is inside it fits it perfectly, so the upper part would probably look the same on anyone in that general body shape. The criss crossing sash at the bottom is the only part that's more natural and if you look, the folds are different.
You're confused about the shoes on the people in the front row part. Demi Moore didn't walk the runway. They took the W cover of Demi Moore and overlayed it on top of the model's photo to show the similarities with the original. Look closely and you can see that the model's photo is shown twice, one with just the model, and the second one with the W cover overlayed on top.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-91201-100x100.png\")
Didn't DM pipe up claiming the image wasn't chopped? Lol
She tweeted a thousand times that it was really her, as well as providing the \"original\" photo. She insists that yes, she is that skinny and has no hips.
Wow. Just wow. If this doesn't make men stop and think about the \"hot\" women they see in the pages of their lad mags and compare to their girlfriends and wives, I don't know what will. The face, hair and makeup have all been Photoshopped, and the body, well... the body could be anyone's. AND Photoshopped. *shudder*
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523246-100x100.png\")
Ive seen some skinny models but this girl is down right walking bones. Its scary that this is the look they were going for.
Then people wonder why women have body image issues.
Actually, what happened was they put the model's head on Demi's body for the runway show.
Sorry, Lessthankind, but putting a celeb's head on a different body is not a new one. Remember when TV Guide put Ophrah's head on Ann-Margaret's body?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-680891-100x100.png\")
Well, I can see why they airbrushed the hips now. That runway model looks like a famine victim. Damn.
Methinks you don't know what famine victims really look like...she looks healthy compared to victims of famine.
I've been following this thing and I did NOT see that coming... at all.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-41264-100x100.png\")
Mmmm...chicken breast...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1506796-100x100.png\")
I thought the photo looked weird (outside of the hip being airbrushed). The legs looked too small for Demi. She's so beautiful, I don't know why they'd feel a need to replace or body and once more, that she wouldn't notice?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-245447-100x100.png\")
hips dont lie !
yeah this is totally bogus. They aren't the same photo. It's the same dress, and a coincidentally similar pose, but definitely not the same photo
seriously people, take a chill pill.
Welcome to Consumerist, aidaan. Can we call you Damage Control?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159466-100x100.png\")
hmm, I guess I don't see definitive proof here that this is the same (part of a) photo. the outline is clearly off. there are subtle differences between the photos (although these could be shopped I suppose). it just doesn't seem like 100% positive proof. it is certainly possible to use roughly the same pose and wear the same exact dress in roughly the same exact fashion, because it was intended to be worn like that.
Photographers take many, many pics to get the one good shot. I agree that these poses aren't identical, but the photographer (or art director?) could have taken a photo from the same series, taken only seconds before or after, and it would show the same body in a slightly different pose.
I won't be convinced it's not the same body unless they release other photos of the model showing the ring (or lack of) on her hand.
that's possible.
I won't believe it either way until I get a high-res photo of the runway model as well, since I already have one of the demi photo. at that point i'd probably just compare freckles on her collar bone, since the runway model blemishes wouldn't be shopped out, and they did not shop those out of the demi photo either.
If you can honestly say that it's entirely coincidental/possible that the two different lighting techs in two different places set up their lights in the same location relative to each other and the floor, and that two people just happened to take the same exact pose in a spot the same distance from the above mentioned lights in order to throw the same exact shadows seen around the feet, instead of that this was shopped, then I don't know what, I'm just typeless.
i don't agree that the scale is the same anyway, so the distance part of the equation is a non-factor.
but it is completely possible and actually probable that the camera person had lights set up in a similar fashion because, well, you gotta light up the model for detail.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332708-100x100.png\")
The feet don't even come into play. The overlap has made it confusing, but the W cover cuts off just above the knees.
The overlap is also confusing the lighting issues, and more importantly, the fabric drape. I thought it was the same photo, too, but the fabric drape belies that.
Also, I do believe that whoever that is above me that mentioned the hanging part in the center (sorry, can't see the comment to reference while I type) is on the money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-508152-100x100.png\")
The lighting isn't the same, though. If you look at the reflection highlights in Demi's photo and Anja's photo, there are a LOT of differences.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-535696-100x100.png\")
Also, it's hard to tell because the photo of Demi is put over the one of the other model, but the dangly thing between her legs (teehee!) is different between the runway model and Demi; the model's is just one flap, and Demi's is a bunch of stringly things.
That is not the same photo. It's the same dress and a very similar pose, but the photo of the fashion model walking down the runway was in no way photoshopped onto the Demi Moore photo. There are just WAAAAAAYYY too many differences in all the small details for that to be a photoshop job.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-808630-100x100.png\")
Who knows anymore...is it because models all walk with the same stick up their butt, or because they're uniformly chosen stock, or some other clone-like reason. Whether it's the same photo or not, the whole thing is still creepy.
I agree. Look closely at the sash. The folds dont come close to matching, that would be very hard to Photoshop IMO
The folds of the sash are different, the reflection highlights of the material on the corset is different, the way the outfit hangs off her shoulders is different...
The only thing is similar is the pose.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-477349-100x100.png\")
Anja Rubik is gross. She needs at least 15# to look decent. No wonder real men don't watch runway expos.
How did Consumerist get the runway photo? There is no photo credit!!!!!
'W' had to have DM pose the same as Anja. This goes deep.
It's your standard runway walk. It's not like Anja is posing in some strange pose that no one has ever done before. That pose must be used in hundreds of fashion shoots every month.
Just because something is similar, doesn't mean it's the same. Just because you have a computer, doesn't make you a Photoshop expert. That's not a body swap job, nor is it a Photoshop nightmare of any kind.
Firstly, it's obvious that it's a different photo, even if their torsos are in a similar pose and photographed from a similar angle. The lighting is different as is the lay of the garment's details. The armchair quarterbacking on this from laypeople who have no professional computer graphics experience is ludicrous.
Also, the method of laying one photo semi-opaque over the other as shown in the original article masks the differences, rather than revealing them.
Seconded. I've just compared these and there are marked differences. The cloth around her hips, and the tassles below are completely different. The waist seems similar in outline, but otherwise is different (especially the highlights), and it's possible the fabric of that part is stiff enough to produce the same silhouette on whoever wears it.
The way to determine if two photos started out as the same is not to look for what is different but to look for the small details that match. Where the knees touch, the shadow of the shoes, where the collar of the right boot covers the laces of the left, where the shoes on the left and right are, all of that proves these are same image.
Who do they think they are foolin,' Demi Moore was never that thin in her twenties much less her forties. That is what was and is so great about her, over the top pretty in a fairly normal package.
I can't expand replies, so doubtless this has already been said, but the feet aren't on the cover. The overlay is making this confusing. The W cover cuts off at the feet.
And you should follow your own advice and check out the drape of the fabric on non-overlaid versions.
Unfortunately, none of the things you mentioned are in the original Demi Moore photograph. The original photograph ends above the knee, pretty much exactly where you see it on the cover, and nothing matches.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1238150-100x100.png\")
The shoes aren't in the Demi Moore photo at all. The shoes are only in the model photo, and the Demi Moore photo is on top of it.
How the hell did anyone involved in this fiasco believe that this would NOT somehow get leaked?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523472-100x100.png\")
They must have run out of silicone. Or else a plastic surgeon was out to lunch during the shoot.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-784011-100x100.png\")
What a clever way to sell magazines.
I am positively appalled by this!
Tina Turner was seriously rockin' it at 46.
If they really wanted to have an interesting cover, they could have used Demi Moore's upper half and Albert Haynesworth's lower half. That would sell some magazines.
Someone give that model some food. She looks very malnourished and hungry.
File this one under \"who gives a shit?\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-581631-100x100.png\")
I want to give that model a sandwich.
It does look just different enough that I don't think they're the same...but the similarities are striking. If this really was superimposing a completely different person's body with DM's head, I'd find that pretty infuriating - I mean, are there any journalistic standards? I figure an airbrush here and there would be okay - but replacing a complete body is just too close to outright fraud.
If the companies who's products these mannequins are wearing keep receiving negative press because of all the Photoshops it will eventually force them to change. They do this because people have been accepting it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523562-100x100.png\")
YAY, I can now comment..
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-251870-100x100.png\")
What really boggles my mind about these sorts of things is how photographers and publications think that can even get away with it anymore. The internet seems to sniff this crap out easily, so why even try?
\"Saw comments on other sites saying it's not the same photo... just a similar pose. Really? Casting the exact same shadow with her foot? And the same shoes on the people in the front rows? Hard to imagine going through the trouble of recreating those things so precisely.\"
Er... those parts aren't on the magazine cover. The cover is that white rectangle.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1280310-100x100.png\")
Is anyone else worried that the runway model looks like she just escaped a concentration camp? I see pelvic bones everwhere.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-91598-100x100.png\")
The wrinkles/folding on the lower sash are quite different between the two pictures.
To all the people tho are saying the folds in the sash are diferent and that it would be too hard to photoshop this etc... Yeah, it is that easy. As someone who does occasional work, this would take all of a couple of hours (or less) to tweak.
As someone who does way more than \"occasional\" work, I can tell you that these images are NOT photoshopped. At least, not in the way the original article suggests.
There may be some airbrushing involved, but there is no mash-up of the two images in ANY way, and I have not seen any compelling evidence to the contrary. In order to prove it has been photoshopped, I would like to see even ONE area of the photo that are identical. There are none.
The most one could say is that the position of the two torsos are similar, but when you look more closely the differences in ALL of details of the corset don't match AT ALL, from the position of the seaming to the reflective highlights of the material.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking the position that photoshopping doesn't occur regularly in the fashion industry - I just don't think it's the case in this particular instance.
I'm a graduate of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago with a Bachelors degree in Fine Arts and I've been a Graphic Designer for the past 8 years.
Rubik is disgusting. seriously, she looks like shes a german war camp laborer. why is that considered attractive? Eat a sandwich!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
Strangely, I feel compelled to eat some pie. Quite a lot of pie, really.
Bwahaha! Still means the hip was just fine!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-128001-100x100.png\")
I've seen that dress in real life and it's very structured. It's going to make any woman roughly that model's size look almost exactly like that, because the bodice is almost corset-like and smooths out the torso. The W cover is undoubtedly photoshopped all to hell, but I do think that's Demi's body, not a copy/paste job.
Years ago, I used to work as a production artist for a service bureau in Universal City, California. One of my regular tasks was creating the TV Guide ads for FOX's TV show Martin. The ads were teasers to that weeks show and have the cast members in poses relating to that weeks plot line.
It was logistically impossible to gather the cast members every week for a new photo shoot, so they would use stand in actors to pose. I would then use publicity photos provided by Fox at the beginning of the season and place their heads on the stand-ins bodies.
I am sure many other shows do this as well. So this is not new to the industry.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1425332-100x100.png\")
I'm confused on the Tina Turner picture. Is Tina the one on the left or the right...
Sigh. I guess it falls to me to ask, \"What does this have to do with consumers?\" This site is showing its political bias by taking sides in the hip reform debate. This story is just more Demon rat propaganda from the Kenyan Muslims who run The Communist. Think it's just a coincidence that the magazine they're criticizing is called \"W\"? Think it's just a coincidence that the editors of this site are named Ben and Meg? Ben and Meg, B & M, Barack & Michelle... I bet you think that's just a coincidence too. Tell me, then, what's that building in the background: http://consumerist.com/assets_c/2009/11/theconsumeristwhitehouse-thumb-288xauto-3271.jpg How come I'm the only one who can see the connections?
Deathpanelfemainternmentcampsacornstoletheelectionglennbeckisasleeperagentvaccinegenocide!
What does this have to do with consumers?
This question got answered in the previous article about this photo.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1523752-100x100.png\")
Wowsers...that's fantastic.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-879930-100x100.png\")
ewww! had a girl like that... was not unlike making love to a skeleton, and it hurt! those crazy hip bones against my kidneys. W should finish the look \"cc wear\" let's see revealing striped pyjamas.
So women should be so thin that their pelvic bones are visible but their pelvic bones shouldn't be visible. Fantastical.
According to the folks in this video, 99.9% of the photos we see are somehow retouched: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP31r70_QNM&feature=related
![http://consumerist.com/assets_c/2009/11/theconsumeristwhitehouse-thumb-288xauto-3271.jpg](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/2009/11/theconsumeristwhitehouse-thumb-288xauto-3271.jpg\"){kind=link}
At what point does it officially stop being a photo of the person claimed to be in the photo?
It should then be called a \"photo illustration\".
I don't think there's anyone who goes around saying what photos are 'officially' of... soo....