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.

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.

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)

Karl Lagerfeld posed supermodel Claudia Schiffer for the cover of German photography quarterly Stern Fotografie, which compiles 50 of the Chanel auteur’s favorite photographs of his longtime friend and muse from the past 20 years.

However, the coffee-table book is attracting some controversy for two of its six covers — one which puts Ms. Schiffer in blackface (complete with faux Afro), and another that has her in traditional Chinese garb and slanted eye makeup.

The waters are muddied by the fact that Mr. Lagerfeld has not hired a black model to walk Chanel’s runway during fashion week since Fall 2005. So the message seems to be that painting the face of a famously blonde-haired blue-eyed model is preferable to hiring a black woman to wear his clothes.

The book is on pre-order now for €30. Will you be buying it?

(via Sassybella)

Even worse, the top brass at Condé Nast knew about the allegations; CEO Charles Townsend reportedly said in March he was “appalled” at the evidence against Richardson, yet he was hired for the June issue anyway.

What’s the deal, Vogue? Is this another example of Roman Polanski-style blanket forgiveness because the man accused is an artist? Because quite honestly, Doutzen Kroes is more of a draw than Richardson at this point. Deciding to put a supermodel of her popularity in what they knew to be a potentially dangerous situation could come back to haunt the editorial board, and what’s the justification for that?

(via Jezebel)

OK, so like a lot of people, we love American Apparel’s awesome tee-shirts and commitment to ethical ideals.

But the company’s Best Bottom Contest is all kinds of wrong.

American Apparel recently posted photos of the scantily clad winners’ assets on its website and we’re vaguely horrified over the blatant objectification of the models, both male and female. But maybe not as horrified as we are about the new ads for the mesh collection. Which we will not be buying.

Look, we love a little junk in the trunk as much as the next person, but we don’t need to see this up-close-and-personal angle on blog ads. It’s a total turn-off. American Apparel should ask themselves, Is creeping out the consumer base really worth it?

The psychology of advertising affects us daily in so many ways, we couldn’t fit them all into this issue. Here’s some more suggested reading from the Behind the Seams blog.

• Jezebel.com compared Louis Vuitton ads from 1986 to their modern-day counterparts. What’s most interesting is how the company switched its focus from quality to fantasy over the years.
• Britney Spears gets our respect for releasing the pre-Photoshop shots of the ads she modeled in for the shoe label Candies.
• A study of diversity among the top brass at New York’s biggest advertising firms revealed that the creative talent on Madison Avenue is universally white and nearly all male. Not much has changed since the era of Mad Men, huh?
• Those Sex and the City 2 posters have gotten wildly out of control with the extensive photo retouching. But why is the studio bothering when everyone knows the leads are all fabulous over 40?
• Several television networks were accused of propagating a double standard after rejecting a Lane Bryant lingerie commercial featuring a plus-size model.

Print advertisements have experimented with dozens of methods over the decades in how they appeal to consumers, particularly women. Below, we’ve given examples of ads over the past 75 years to illustrate the evolution of advertising.

Click on any image to launch the slideshow.