Lena Dunham

[Hamatron]

So, they didn't do that much.

There's some lighting changes and color hightening. In the first pic they changed her cleavage level and reshaped her jaw so that she's smiling/her jaw is more defined. There's a slight shave in the waist, but nothing of Britney-level proportions. So, pretty much the touch-up of an average fashion shoot. Oh, and a photoshopped pigeon. Good job guys, I hope it was worth $10,000 for that closure.

[Deleted]

The changes are so slight and hardly make a difference. They definitely don't rise to the level of feminist outrage.

Stock pigeon photo!

(Photographer Annie Leibovitz uses composite images quite often, dropping people in to a new background or cobbling together a background from a separate image. Sometimes it's quite obvious — her work for Disney and Louis Vuitton, for example — and other times, it's tougher to tell what's been digitally manipulated. When she shot Olympic athletes for Vogue, sometimes the models and sports stars posed separately. She photographed the Queen of England standing in room one day; then shot a field with trees another, and then digitally placed Her Majesty — who was disinclined to go outside — standing in a field. Which makes the pigeon shot even more weird; it's not as if Lena Dunham is averse to standing on Brooklyn sidewalks.)

Yeah, but a pigeon would be averse to standing on top of Lena's head; thus, the Stock pigeon photo! Gawd. Why was this paragraph even a part of the article? Are we supposed to be offended by photographers using creative "fake" backgrounds now as well? AL showed the Queen of England standing in a field when she really wasn't. How dare she!!

[Hamatron]

Also, photoshoots take up space and there are sometimes crowds to deal with. Maybe Vogue didn't want to shut down a sidewalk and sew a pigeon to her head. Jeez.

Thanks Jezebel, for making me defend Vogue -- which I also love to roll my eyes at and critique as a feminist -- with simple logic.

ETA: Also, I get that Vogue is influential and stuff... but is it? Sometimes I feel like it's this doddering old white people mag like Vanity Fair is. The only people I know who actually buy it and read it work in or write on the fashion industry. And still, most of my fashionista friends get their inspiration from Tumblr, or blogs, or personal stylists, or even just InStyle. It just feels like some feminist sites focus way too much on putting on a tin hat and calling out Vogue. There's so much more out there in pop-culture to critique, guys.

ETA, Part 2: Apparently people were pointing out how wrong Jezebel was for this in the comments of the $10,000 bounty post. From what I can tell, they wiped the post of all comments.

[jmc]

Apparently people were pointing out how wrong Jezebel was for this in the comments of the $10,000 bounty post. From what I can tell, they wiped the post of all comments.

They send dissenting comments down to the gray area or delete them quite a bit. I don't know why they try to hide the bad comments, but it's their right I guess.

There was really no point in buying those untouched photos. Everyone knows Vogue retouches photos and what Lena Dunham's body really looks like, it wasn't exactly a groundbreaking expose there.

[GossipGirl]

I don't even like Lena Dunham, but what did that jezebel stunt prove? That Lena Dunham has an average body that Vogue would re-touch. DUH. Jezebel is really sad now with body shaming. I can't believe I had to defend Lena Dunham, but this just seems mean.

[magazinewhore]

That truly was akin to the Al Capone vault on the Geraldo Riviera show. If you don't know what I'm talking about: Google it.

I hate to lose anything with a feminist viewpoint (although I don't think Jezebel really did have one), but Jezebel can go away now. Going to The Hairpin.

My random thoughts:

I get the feeling some young women don't understand what feminism is. Jezebel: case in point.

I guess I now know why journalism imploded (or at least remnants of it). As someone who worked as a journalist in the 90s, I'm officially insulted.

[dragonflie]

Funny, actually think 2 shots look better untouched. The cover shot, and the one where she is on Adams shoulders. I like the "before" pictures much better. The only thing I would say that looks obvious is the chin reshaping in the other pics.

[Deleted]

I read Jezebel and enjoy a lot of articles they post, but this is ridic. The photoshopping is not extreme at all, and I'm sure Lena was fully aware it would be done. If they hadn't 'shopped her at all, then Jezebel (and others) would be saying how Vogue was leaving the pics untouched to try to shame her for being imperfect or something.

[Deleted]

Good gracious, we all do it - I like Instagram filters because they usually take off my forehead lines. Pretty sure I am still a feminist.

I think this is going to backfire spectacularly on Jezebel.

[stina]

I was actually surprised at how "un-retouched" the pictures of Lena are. I don't think they really changed they way she looks, they just gave it that "Vogue finish" - mostly in terms of lighting, and a smidge on her body. They would have done the same to a supermodel.

I object much more to the recent Kate Winslet cover. Now, that is retouching - she looked like a Barbie doll.