Beauty & Body Image, Celebrity Quotes, Emily Blunt, Photoshop Job

Emily Blunt: “Don’t Photoshop Me Thinner!”

Emily Blunt Don't Photoshop Me Thinner!

I heard you once instructed a photographer not to airbrush you-that can’t be right, can it?
I told him not to make me thinner. I hate when your legs are three times the length they actually are. I heard they could raise your nipples if you have a slightly see-through top, lift your bum-they can do everything. I can understand there are things like shadows they need to fix after a shoot, but it’s unfair to represent an image of yourself if it’s not true. They’re gonna see what you look like on film anyway, so why try to cover all your wobbly bits in a photo?

… says Emily in Los Angeles Times Magazine.

And how do you like the pictures from this spread?

2 more after the jump!

Previous ArticleNext Article
  • Edan

    I think some of them are pretty, I love feather skirts, they look so gorgeous in photos.
    Why is she posing with crutches though – it’s odd. Is there an injury theme I am missing?

    • CéliAmbre

      yeah i like the feather too.

      i remember anne hathaway say that them both were fasting and crying of hunger on the devil wears prada set. that explains why she is sick of this skinniness-hype.

      • Jay

        if they were fasting they wouldnt be crying of hunger. when you fast your appetite disappears after a few days. they wouldve been restricting their eating. that would have made them hungry. i know your just repeating their comment and i just mean that what THEY said doesnt make sense.
        and before anyone starts attacking me and saying this is bs, ive done a 10 days fast and was not crying with hunger. and you should research fasting before commenting on it.

  • ann

    Good luck. Editors do what they want and if you don’t like it you should just quit your job.

    I don’t get the spread. Is she playing an injured woman or something? I get the retro theme but other than that it’s really just odd.

    • sola

      yep agreed bout the editors. Thats kinda one thing that annoys me about people. they will be ‘oh! How bad is *insert celebrity name here*…she is so airbrushed! what a hypocrit!’ or ‘oh! how nice, so and so is against being airbrushed’…when really. they have no say.

      • Nkeon

        Well it depends on the celebrity I guess.
        Someone like Emily Blunt may not have much say but a more influential celeb may be given more autonomy as to how their shoot turns out.

        A few years back, when celeb status actually meant something, I remember hearing stories of Actresses or singers making demands and having them met (Tyra Banks being one of them)

        It depends on their potential to generate cash. If say Beyonce insisted on an un-retouched cover (like she would!) and an editor decided that she, even un-retouched, had the potential to be a hit on the shelves they’ll comply. If they decide that any other celeb retouched would be just as good then they’d ditch

        • ann

          Nope, Most people have to sign something called an “MUA”. It means the end result does not belong to the model and they have no say over it. Nor can they sue to take possession of it. No photographer in his/her right mind would photograph anyone for a magazine without an MUA.

          • ann

            Bah, I used the wrong article. oh well, you get the point.

  • Lian

    Pretending to be noble… how nice!

  • Mia

    that’s a really strange photoshoot…as for the photoshopping, it’s nice that she’s saying that, but I wonder how adamant she is about it when the actual magazine is printed.

  • yoosahasa

    Yikes….the shot of her straight forward (up close, not the crutches one) is rough. She looks dopey in that picture.

  • Sidney

    I like the photos, they’re kinda rugged but in a delicate way. I think the walking sticks symbolize the imperfections, the crookedness (of both body and mind, i think…) Those kinda things are used in music videos all the time.. But anyhow, i like the shoot. It doesn’t seem to me like theyd’ve made her appear a lot thinner or longer, which from the quote seemed to be what she was most against. I do agree however, that at the end of the day the ones behind the shoots are gonna do what they feel like doing.

    • Sidney

      *taller, not longer, hah

  • keiko

    I like this spread. it’s very corpse bride.
    Her legs look 3 miles long, so without the photoshopping they must only be 1 mile long.

    • sola

      LOL! so true

  • artemis

    interesting

  • Hellonhighheels

    The top pic from the spread is alright, but in the rest, she looks slightly “special.” The crutches? Ummmm…… yeah….

  • Natasha O

    Sorry Emily but you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Hence someone saying omg look at how diff she looks in real life compared to her photo and if you are photoshopped why didn’t they leave her as is. Also im sure photographers are annoyed that you are telling them what to do because once you sign up to do a magazine spread it’s not about you anymore you’re pretty disposable!!! It’s about the magazine and their image. Nevertheless I’m not annoyed at her statement and I don’t think it’s contrived I’m just kind of intrigued. Like your in magazines you were in a Max Studio campaign did you really think they used your image as is!!!!!

  • Alias

    Love her – I like the first photo and 1st photo on the left. The others are weird and confusing. I agree with other posters, what is going on with the shoot? There doesn’t seem to be a clear theme.

  • B.

    I like that she’s speaking out. It would be great if the retouchers would actually take this advice! If you don’t think the person looks good enough to be in your magazine, then don’t hire them at all. The spread is unique and elegant looking!

    Versus, you should do a post on the February 2010 edition of Flare magazine: http://art8amby.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/flare-feb-2010-miranda-kerr.jpg
    That’s an image of the cover. I am extremely shocked that they COMPLETELY reshaped Miranda’s face shape and nose. To me, she’s virtually unrecognizable! It makes me sad.

    • Thank you for the tip! I just did the post!
      She looks unrecognizable to me, too – and it was completely unnecessary since she is so beautiful…

  • Dr. Truth

    Stunning face…

    I like what she’s saying here although I doubt any magazines really give a shit. I mean, they’re not making their money on portraying celebrities with their natural flaws, right?

  • too monochromatic and consumptive for my liking

  • Sarah

    I have to say, it doesn’t look like the editors listened to her…
    She still looks great though.

  • Sidney

    I just realized the left pic from the bottom row reminds me of a Elin Danielson-Gambogis painting, though it’s not the same body position or anything, it’s the atmosphere that i caught from looking at it i think. Got me feeling that that’s propably the reason i liked the set in the first place..

  • padme

    I like her attitude. Weird pictures.

  • lelily

    Is it just me, or does she look a bit like Nicky Hilton in some of these pictures?

  • Aims

    She looks gross in the pics and really good in real life… this sucks!

  • Kae

    I love her, but not this photoshoot.

  • Eve

    She is pretty in the real life and soooo ugly here. And giving crunches to a pretty girl…OMG whos “great” idea is this?????

  • spangle

    these are gorgeous. dreamy.

  • Jemima

    I don’t really like the third photo, but I like the others. The third photo doesn’t look like her :\

Skip to toolbar