Is the fashion industry so short of ‘normal’ sized models, they’re having to photoshop more meat on the bones of size zeros? It’s emerged Healthy magazine – published by Holland and Barrett – digitally altered it’s cover star to give her a fuller figure, after she arrived on the day of the shoot looking too svelte for the healthy image.
‘She was so thin, we had to put on about half a stone,’ said Jane Druker, the magazine’s editor, ‘There were plenty of clothes that we couldn’t put on her because her bones stuck out too much.’ However they shot her anyway, then later digitally added an extra 20kilograms to her tiny frame.
Details of the incident emerged during a debate on the issue of retouching earlier this month, hosted by the model agency Leni's Model Management.
Eleni Renton, the director of Leni's Model Management, said the magazine, which celebrate ‘heath and wellbeing,’ behaviour was ‘crazy’. ‘That girl probably should have been sent home from the shoot,’ she said, ‘She's supposed to be representing a 'healthy' magazine as their cover girl and they retouched her to make her look healthier. It's false.’
So why was she cast in the first place? Didn’t her vital stats give her size away?
‘Rather than take a chance on a different size model who actually fits the criteria for a shoot, it's much easier for magazine editors and casting directors to book a girl who is a known quantity in the industry,’ said Eleni, ‘Even if she might be slightly too slim or large for a job, and then retouch her later.’
You could say digital fattening is progress – haven’t we campaigned for curvier cover stars? Or is this the wrong way to go about it? You tell us…
By Amy Molloy