In fashion shows, everything is dynamic, and there is a lot of bronzer involved, too. Then there is the lighting, the movement, the special effects… It is much harder to capture perfection in 2D.
Pretty sure everything a model does is photoshopped. And none of them know anything about it at all. 
Weird that they put the young woman and the older woman in the same swimsuit. I don’t think metallic gold does the older woman any favors. I also wonder if the gray hair might not look nicer if it didn’t look wet and plastered to her head.
Ronda Rousey looked great.
I look at a picture of myself in my 20’s and now see myself in my 40’s. The future is scary. Can’t I just look the same forever? Why does my metabolism have to slow down?
People who die young look the same forever. Seems to me its better to get old.
I think that too-small-stuff-hanging out-all-over gold lame’ suit is unflattering on both of them.
^^Then I better take good care of myself.
^^working on it at 60!
Agree with jym. The gold lame bathing suit is just tacky and trashy looking. It’s like a teenage boy’s fantasy of what a bathing suit should look like. A less trashy bathing suit could have looked ten times better.
Love the Helen Mirren photo. She’s gorgeous!!
Actually, just realized all 3 of the plus sized models wore that lame number and it’s just dreadful on all of them.
That said, I am smaller than a size 14 by several sizes, and I don’t think I could pull off wearing a bikini (nor would I want to try). Though photoshop would be a big help!
Wow! Helen Mirren’s photo! Just another reason to be jealous!
Wow! The Washington Post charts of the evolution of clothing sizes over time! Just another reason to be grateful!
I think the plus-size model and the 56-year-old model look great! Of course, sun exposure does damage the skin over time. Just another reason to be grateful for my subterranean office (no kidding).
It’s one thing to glance over the photographer’s shoulder, and another thing to see the finished product in print.
In my day they took polaroids to check the lighting, and those bear little resemblance to the finished product. Nowadays it’s mostly digital, but even those are raw and not corrected for white balance or color.
When people are saying “photoshopped”, they don’t necessarily mean you grabbed the trim tool and narrowed the model’s waist and erased cellulite. What they can do is just short of wizardry-they can make parts of her body lighter and darker (dodge and burn), to highlight it visually, they can feather edges of certain areas to give it softness that it doesn’t have naturally, they can select her eyes and increase the size and luminosity by 10% (or 100%, if you wanted to go all crazy). I’d say I’m an intermediate user of Photoshop, and I’ve seen people do stuff that’s just remarkable and brilliantly subtle.
The girl has no idea what goes on after she walks off the shoot. She knows what she looks like, but she doesn’t understand Photoshop.
I had a graphics artist that was hired to create a crowd scene for Hawaii 5-0! He was given just a few photos and had to make each person look unique and it was amazing how real he made it all. I agree Photoshop is magic and unless YOU had TOTAL control of all aspects of your photo from the time it was snapped until it was printed, you CANNOT KNOW precisely what was (or wasn’t) done to your photo.
Why would she need to understand Photoshop? She can look at the final pictures and see that isn’t how she looks. She doesn’t need to know precisely what was done (in terms of feathering, dodging, etc.) or how it was done (in terms of tools/processes used in whatever given editing software was used) to know that the final image is different from how she looks. Most people if given the unedited photos and edited photos would be able to spot the edits (other than the very subtle ones). And she lives the unedited photos.
And we are not talking about your average Jane. She is someone who makes a living (and I suspect a very good one) with her appearance. Her looks are much more important to her than the vast majority of people. Thus she will have a much better understanding of her own looks than the vast majority of people.
And unlike the vast majority of people, who rarely see anything other than snapshot quality pictures of themselves and less often wearing bikinis, negligee, etc. and who likely have only seen their high school graduation picture and maybe some wedding photos that were actually edited, this woman has seen thousands and thousands of both unedited and edited pictures of herself. Makes a huge difference in terms of being able to spot edits.
In the end, I am willing to bet the photos were edited (along with all of the others in SI and pretty much all other media). And I suspect Ashley knows that as well. But my guess is that when you are 5’11 and 125 llbs, you won’t be anywhere near as sensitive to claims of “photo shopped” as someone who is 5’9 and 165 pounds. Particularly when you are the first “plus sized” model in the swimsuit issue. And in general, when the world of fashion attaches “plus sized” to models who are really average to a little below average sized. Doesn’t change the fact that she would know edits have been made.
She is not given the unedited photos. The editors would never allow those out. Every time those get out there’s a huge backlash (hello Justin Bieber). My argument is that you would never know what’s been done unless you can compare those two photos side by side, and she would not have the opportunity to do that.
I disagree with your statement “she has a much better understanding of her own looks than most people.” Models tend to suffer from body dysmorphic syndrome a lot more than regular people-they always think they’re fatter and uglier than they really are.
I am breaking a personal rule by chiming in as I try to never fuel the women’s appearance obsession, but I think she is gorgeous. My wife and daughter are much closer to this than the praying mantis proportioned models. It bothers me a bit that the female ideal is a 10 year-old boy with breasts and not a more representative shape.
My point is that she wouldn’t need to see the unedited photos because she lives them. She sees her unedited body each and every day. And she definitely sees unedited photos of herself even if editors will not let her see them.
My point with respect to seeing photos side by side is simply to address the notion that without knowing the ins and outs of Photoshop and everything that may have been done to a given photo, no one could possibly have a clue of what was done to it.
Do you think you could look at an edited picture of someone you know well and know at least some of the edits without seeing the unedited and edited photos side by side?
And its not relevant whether models tend to view themselves as fatter and uglier than they really are. Its comparing unedited and edited photos (and again she lives unedited photos of herself – as do all of us) each and every day. She is comparing images of herself to other images of herself. Not some independent concept of fat or ugly.
“She sees her unedited body each and every day.”
What a person sees even in a mirror is a virtual 3D image of herself: because we move, breathe, etc., our brain captures these “images” completely differently than a 2D image - even untouched by Photoshop.
“And she definitely sees unedited photos of herself even if editors will not let her see them.”
Something tells me you have zero experience with professional or even semi-pro photography. Here is a good explanation of why even an unedited photo may not be an accurate reflection of reality - take a read:
http://gizmodo.com/5661253/giz-explains-why-you-look-different-in-photos-than-you-do-in-the-mirror
So she only sees herself either in the mirror or in fully edited photos of herself? She never shes herself ever in an unedited 2d image? Seems amazingly unlikely to me but maybe in your world.
And folks are saying no one would ever know whats been done unless you can compare the before and after photos side by side. And how would a model know how much retouching there was. Both seem absurd on their face to me. Change grey eyes to blue. Brush out freckles or a birth mark. Remove signs of cellulite or stretch marks. No way the person in the photo could tell that without seeing before and after photos? Or even someone who knows the person well. I disagree with that. Are there subtle changes that can be made in an editing process that the model may not perceive without being told about them? Sure. But that is not what people are saying here.
I have 40+ years of photography experience. 35mm slides/negatives and medium format in film. Digital as well. Developing film and making prints (editing them in a room that was dark manually). 10+ years editing digitally. Maybe next time that whatever something tells you something, you may want to ignore it. Just saying.
Your link talks about very subtle differences/distortions which isn’t what I am talking about here. And Brain Games covered the mirror image issue a year or two ago. Was interesting.