(Courtesy of Vogue U.K.)

Becoming a mother changed my life in the biggest way ever. You become a lot more conscious of yourself and your relationship to the environment and to other people. You become a living example of what your children live by. And they teach you to be very present and in the moment.

From an environmental perspective, at first I focused on the external environment—pollution, all of those things—but now that I’ve been on this journey for 10 years in a major way I’m realizing how everything is so interconnected. It’s not only external—it’s internal. It’s taking it down from the macro to the micro in our communities: How we interact with one another and our families and values.

If we’re aligned and connected we make choices that impact the larger whole in a positive way.

– Retired supermodel Angela Lindvall on her evolving view of the importance of eco-fashion. Read the whole interview to find out her favorite eco-beauty companies and designers.

(Courtesy of Jezebel.com)

Jezebel is really on the ball lately when it comes to spotting photoshop disasters in fashion advertising. The latest offender: London Fog, which recently hired Mad Men‘s curvaceous Christina Hendricks to star in its fall ad campaign.

The trouble is, her famous curves are way less recognizable after London Fog’s photo retouchers overzealously took the Liquefy filter to her waist, hips, and even her wrists. The proof is in these photos — candids from the shoot compared with the finished product. There’s really no question that she’s been digitally slimmed down.

Why any brand would go to the trouble to hire Christina Hendricks — the proud poster child for curvy girls — and then change her proportions in post-production is beyond us. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

(Courtesy of Harper's Bazaar U.K.)

Interesting data analysis of the makeup of models and celebrities on the September covers of the 29 mainstream fashion magazines currently on newsstands, courtesy of Jezebel.com:

Number of people on all the covers of these magazines: 48 (including six people with covers of LOVE, not pictured)
Number of covers featuring Gisele Bündchen: 2 (counting one cover of LOVE, not pictured)
Number of covers featuring Naomi Campbell: 2
Number of covers featuring Kate Moss: 2
Number of covers featuring Lady Gaga: 2
Number of covers featuring one or more people of color: 6
Total number of people of color on all of these magazines: 12
12 out of 48 makes: 25%

The data also shows that of the 48, ten of the cover girls (women?) are over 40 and the oldest star in the glossies is Lauren Hutton at age 66. Dakota Fanning, at 16, is the youngest. And there is only one man: Tom Cruise, on Harper’s Bazaar Japan. And as previously noted, this is the first time in 21 years that a black woman — Halle Berry, in this instance — scored the September cover of American Vogue.

So while there isn’t a ton of gender or racial diversity (and regrettably, zero plus-size models or celebrities made a cover this month), at least there’s some variety this year as compared to Septembers past. Progress is slow but it’s a-coming.

(Courtesy of Vogue.com)

If you’ve ever watched the documentary The September Issue, you know just how important the fall fashion is at Vogue headquarters — and by extension, for fashion followers around the world.

So with Halle Berry gracing the cover of the biggest issue of the year, it’s somewhat mystifying why it’s been 21 years since a black woman had the honor. Naomi Campbell appeared on it in 1989, and since then? Nada.

Really, Vogue? No Beyoncé, no Rihanna, no Liya Kebede, not even Michelle Obama had the opportunity in the ’00s? Or going back into the ’90s: Tyra Banks, Alek Wek, and Ms. Berry herself, all blacklisted, as it were?

Speaking of Halle, even she acknowledged in the interview that it was long overdue:

The only reason she is submitting now, she says, is that Vogue made her an offer she couldn’t refuse: the September cover. ”What that means for a woman of color and what that means in the fashion world, what that means to pop culture, there was no way I could say, ‘No, I’m not going to be on the biggest issue of the year.’”

There’s no good reason for such a long drought, and with so many accomplished black women working in Hollywood and the fashion industry today, it would be shameful if we have to wait until 2030 for the next September cover girl of color to appear on the newsstands.

(via The Cut)

(Courtesy of Jezebel.com)

It hasn’t been the best summer for healthy body image, but it’s been a great few months for photoshop disasters.

The newest airbrushing scandal on the block is the above ad for Ann Taylor. The image on the left appeared in AnnTaylor.com search results, but if you clicked on the photo to buy the shirt, the wrinkles magically disappear — along with about four inches of her already-slim waist and a few inches off her thighs as well.

Oops.

To their credit, Ann Taylor’s marketing execs copped to the problem immediately:

We have a standard retouching guideline that shows realistic images. An art director will look over the selects, choose the best poses, and the retouching vendor will handle the rest. Our art directors are responsible for calling out any obvious issues and providing direction to the retoucher.

We are working with clothing that hasn’t been fully fitted so we have to take care of that with some of the retouching. Retouching is not only about tweaking the clothing but also the lighting as well. …

We really put precautionary measures in place this year as we agree our retouching had been overzealous and inconsistent with our beliefs.

There are two ethical issues at play here: Photoshop is being used to improve the quality of clothes, and models are being digitally manipulated to fit an unattainable mold. If Ann Taylor’s clothing doesn’t drape perfectly due to fit issues, it should be shown that way so online customers can make an informed purchasing decision. And the second issue is self-evident.

As followers of fashion who believe there’s value in seeing merchandise presented honestly, we hope Ann Taylor — and other brands that are just as guilty of “overzealous” airbrushing — shape up and start offering consumers the truth.

A reader took us to task this week for blaming photographer Nicholas Routzen for Crystal Renn’s strangely thin physique in the new Passion for Fashion ads.

A few days after the brouhaha broke out, Mr. Routzen took to his blog to defend himself from the photoshop-happy criticism. He writes:

Below are 6 untouched images of Crystal moving around, shifting hips, working chin angles, etc.

It’s important to note that, if you watch her thigh, closest to the left side of the screen, as it shifts from a vertical position to a downward – there is a drastic change in body size. This is one of the most basic lessons, when studying either photography or film: lower angles give you a wider subject and the closest thing to the lens will look the largest. As I said in a previous interview, this series that I shot with Crystal was done from a higher angle and with a wider lens. …

I want to reiterate that I feel Crystal looks amazing in both images and the minimal retouching that I did do — it’s nothing you wouldn’t see in any magazine today. There is nothing hidden about this.

In our opinion, he lets himself off the hook a bit with the last part, about airbrushing being standard in magazines.

But what do you think, E.S. readers? Is Mr. Routzen’s evidence compelling to you?

Can’t photo editors leave Crystal Renn alone?

As you can see in this unedited photo, there is nothing wrong with the model-of-the-moment’s body. Ms. Renn is now a size 10 but in her own words, she’s far healthier than she was in her anorexic days. And she’s getting more work than she knows what to do with.

Big-name labels aren’t hiring her despite her curves, but because of them. So why would photographer Nicholas Routzen make the editorial decision to digitally shave several dress sizes off her frame for the Passion for Fashion charity campaign?

Ms. Renn herself has no idea, as she tells Glamour of her reaction to seeing the finished product:

I was shocked. When I saw the pictures, I think I was silent for a good five minutes, staring with my mouth open. I don’t know what was done to those photos or who did it, but they look retouched to me. And listen, everybody retouches, but don’t make me into something I’m not. …

But in the new pictures…well, that body doesn’t look like my body. It doesn’t. Having had an eating disorder, I know what that very thin body looks like on me, and it’s not something I find attractive. It’s not something I aspire to.

I feel completely confident in my own health because I know I don’t look like that, but even to see it in an image was really disturbing to me.

(Photo comparison courtesy of The Cut)

In a reverse of the Photoshop diagram posted in U.K. department store Debenhams last week, Nordstrom is now at the center of its own (undisclosed) airbrushing controversy.

Eagle-eyed blogger Tavi at Jezebel.com recently posted about a bad retouching job on a Ralph Lauren model appearing on Nordstrom.com. (You may remember this is hardly the first time Ralph Lauren models have had anatomically impossible retouching work done.)

A representative for Nordstrom has since responded to clarify the company’s policy on post-production work:

For the sake of clarity, as we previously mentioned, the orange t-shirt photo was indeed retouched: we smoothed out the model’s nipples, removed a few wrinkles from the pants and shirt and punched up the shirt’s color. In addition, as some of you pointed out, we also smoothed out her left hip (something that we neglected to originally mention). After taking a closer look at the final image, we think the smoothing was a bit heavy-handed and we’re disappointed with the result.

We also said in our response that we have a policy against “thinning or thickening” models. That’s not the case. It turns out that we don’t have a consistent policy on this. Actually, there have been times when we have “thickened” or added weight to a model or “thinned” a model by smoothing out bulges that may distort the shape of the clothes. It’s not a common practice for us, but we have done it on a case-by-case basis when we think it will make an image and the clothing we’re featuring look better or more true to life.

The backlash against gratuitous airbrushing continues, and we couldn’t be happier that people are picking up on it. The more we as consumers recognize the signs of a bad PhotoShop, the better equipped we are to recognize what attainable body-image ideals look like.

As many of our readers know, we have very mixed feelings about American Apparel. On the one hand, its vertical integration model means all of its clothes are made in the USA and we admire the label’s commitment to designing with recycled and organic textiles. On the other, American Apparel’s advertising strategy could stand to objectify women less. (A lot less.)

Now we have another negative to add to Column B. On Gawker.com, a tipster leaked the company’s confidentiality agreement, which must be signed by all new hires and limits employees’ ability to report questionable behavior. From the legalese:

You understand that the Company is a high profile publicly traded company that is vulnerable from a media perspective. You also understand that that the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Dov Charney, is considered an international business celebrity and has become one of the most recognized CEOs in the fashion industry. …

Further, you agree not to disparage the Company or Mr. Charney in public or online on blogs or any other similar media. Further, you understand and agree that all communications concerning Confidential Information in public, even with fellow employees of the Company, that are or reasonably could be overheard by a third party (e.g., and without limitation, in bars and restaurants) shall be deemed a breach of this Confidentiality Agreement. …

In the event of any breach by you (or your agents) of this Confidentiality Agreement, you shall pay as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty, the sum of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each such breach, which the parties agree represents reasonable compensation for the harm incurred as a result of such breach.

The contract seems explicitly designed to protect Mr. Charney, who is no stranger to accusations of sexual harassment and unethical accounting practices. We can’t help but wonder what he has to hide if he’s willing to threaten his employees with a million-dollar penalty for speaking up.

Retailers know a trend when they see it. At least British department store Debenhams has jumped on the let’s-eschew-unrealistic-body-image bandwagon with its latest storefront ad, which clearly labels everywhere one of its swimsuit models has been airbrushed.

As Mark Woods, Debenhams’ creative and visual director told the Daily Mail:

‘As a responsible retailer we want to help customers make the most of their beauty without bombarding them with unattainable body images.

‘Our campaign is all about making women feel good about themselves – not eroding their self belief and esteem by using false comparisons.

‘Not only does it make sense from a moral point of view, it ticks the economic boxes as well. Millions of pounds a year are spent by organisations retouching perfectly good images.

‘As a rule we only airbrush minor things like pigmentation or stray hair and rely on the natural beauty of models to make our product look great.

Those retouched waists are always so obvious, anyway, since much of the time they are ergonomically impossible.

This, by the way, follows Debenhams’ well-received test run putting U.K. size 16 (U.S. size 12) mannequins in its shop front this past February. Progressive forward momentum, we say.

(via The Cut)