Quantcast

Kate Winslet: Latest Photoshop Star? (and others)

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

ThatFatGirl

Why am I still here?
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
3,514
Location
, undecided
Kate's all thin and trim in the latest Vanity Fair issue (article here). She's been less voluptuous for the last several years now, but has she gotten THIS thin?

Hmm... still lovely, but this is just a bit too thin for comfort. Be sure to flip through the slide show for me pics, plus more magazine covers w/photoshop gone wild.

**********************************************


Now her rep is speaking out. "Kate is furious at suggestions that her body has been airbrushed," says a spokesperson for the actress, according to PEOPLE.

In one report from the Telegraph, a digital retouching expert is brought in to discuss the photos. "The first place to look is under the eyes, because whether you're two or 92 you have darkness there, and the pictures of Kate have none. There's certainly no sign of acne either. It definitely looks like there has been a bit of work done."

Winslet's publicist told the Telegraph that there had been skin tone correction but no airbrushing, while a Vanity Fair spokesperson told the paper that there was only "a minimal amount of retouching."

The Daily Mail took the analysis one step further, bringing in an airbrush artist to break down the photos area by area.

His analysis:
The face: "There is no real detail in her face. Any detail or wrinkles have been removed. There are no eye bags, contours and smile lines. The whites of her eyes have been cleaned up and are now a really clean, crisp white. I'd say her lips have possibly been made slightly fuller as well."
The skin: "Her skin has generally been retouched all over so she has no lines or blemishes at all. Her skin is completely perfect."

The hands and feet: "There are no wrinkles or lines or veins on her hands and feet and this just is not natural."

The figure: "Her back and lower body have been pinched in to make her look thinner and to give her some curves. Her bottom has been rounded off so it looks nice and pert. I would be very surprised if her bottom was like that naturally. Her thigh appears to have been made slimmer so it appears more toned. And in the shot of her sitting down on the front cover, it's possible her legs were made slightly thinner so they also appear more toned."

Winslet has been caught in the middle of a photo controversy before, apologizing after Britain's GQ ran photos of the actress that were altered to make her appear slimmer.

"I just didn't want people to think I was a hypocrite and that I'd suddenly lost 30 lbs. or whatever. So I just came out and said, 'Look, I don't look like that'. I'm not mad at the magazine, but I have no intention of looking like that," said Winslet about the GQ pics.
 

ThatFatGirl

Why am I still here?
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
3,514
Location
, undecided
I kinda rushed my first post as I was getting dinner on the table (hence the typos).

Here's her new cover and hyperlink to the article in Vanity Fair:


I think everyone has the right to do whatever they want with their own body. So Kate lost weight and is happy. Good for her. I am sad to see a woman who really could be a role model to young women struggling with body image issues allow the media to manipulate her image in the way it so clearly has been here. She spends 20 minutes in a gym every day followed by a glass of Chardonnay and looks like this (first pic especially)? I don't think so...


 

Santaclear

User
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
8,225
Location
,
In that still in your first post, TFG, that looks like the body of a Barbie doll. I mean it REALLY looks like a doll.
 

Scorsese86

Likeable conservative
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
3,178
Location
,
That cover photo... who is that?
It's sure as hell isn't Kate Winslet!
 

AnotherJessica

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
228
Location
I'm not really comfortable with giving Facebook un
When I first saw this picture, I didn't even recognize it to be her. It makes me mad because the woman is naturally gorgeous and they make her look completely fake. Not to mention that girls and women look at these pictures and think that they need to live up to those standards which are unrealistic.

anyway, rant over. we have all heard this stuff before...it just angers me...
 

mossystate

flicks a booger on conrad
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
10,071
Location
,
Oh, look... Catherine Deneuve and Angelina Jolie had a girl!

It's not just the shape of the body...it is also the yawn inducing smooth...everything. Smells like Winslet heard Father Time ( at the ripe old age of 33 ) knocking at her door and she needed to join the ranks of ' aging ' Hollywood women who know they will never be seen as ' sexy '...not in an industry where men are allowed to have...oh...facial lines...and women are not.

These women are fighting their own fights, and I can't blame them, considering . Maybe she thought about being a role model...and changed her mind. I would like to be surprised...I am not.

The pictures....plump or not....blah.
 

Ruby Ripples

Dis Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
3,489
Location
,
I would never have recognised that cover as Kate Winslet. She has quite a strong, almost masculine bone structure in her face naturally, but in that photo her whole jawline looks like it has been reduced greatly.

Looking at other pics on that site, what I noticed most was... wow Nicole Kidman's hair is as grey as mine, you can really see her roots in the right hand pic of her. I had thought I'd noticed it before, but wasn't sure. Also the "real" pic of Courtney Cox-Arquette... that woman has some seriously sun damaged skin. Would be interesting to see her complexion on one of those sun-damage photos. I hope she is fake tanning now, for the sake of her skin health and so she doesn't look like an old chamois leather in a few years time.
 

Admiral_Snackbar

Veni, vidi, Lionel Richie
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
2,919
Location
,
Winslet was sexy as hell in Little Children. Good movie overall, but nice seeing a woman with a real, unadulterated MILF body get royally shagged. She was so adorable with the minimalist makeup and mommy attire.
 

GWARrior

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
1,918
Location
,
Whats with everyone going platinum blonde? I think it looks great on natural blondes, and even some darker haired folks can pull it off... but Kate was a beautiful dark haired girl. Lindsay Lohan had red hair to die for... but now? ugh.
 

Suze

Too Vanilla For You
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
2,880
Location
,
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of these "Let's discuss how ugly celebrity's look when they loose weight" type of threads, but this is quite shocking.

She looks like a fucking barbie doll. I bet she's thrilled looking like 90% of the rest of Hollywood.
 

fatgirl33

Just doodlin'
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
898
Location
Canada
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of these "Let's discuss how ugly celebrity's look when they loose weight" type of threads, but this is quite shocking.
I am a big fan of discussing how weight loss negatively effects how celebrities look, if for no other reason than there's such a glut of positive compliments whenever celebs lose weight... I mean, how many times does Valerie Bertinelli have to hit us over the head with those Jenny Craig ads?

I find the endless parade of celebs crying out, "Look how much weight I lost and how good I look!" is such a pervasive campaign against fat people, the positive campaigns (like the one Dove had recently, and "activists" like Beth Ditto, etc. promote) can't even be heard above the din.

I didn't want to make this political, but this is just a little beef I have with advertising...

Brenda
 

Suze

Too Vanilla For You
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
2,880
Location
,
I am a big fan of discussing how weight loss negatively effects how celebrities look, if for no other reason than there's such a glut of positive compliments whenever celebs lose weight... I mean, how many times does Valerie Bertinelli have to hit us over the head with those Jenny Craig ads?

I find the endless parade of celebs crying out, "Look how much weight I lost and how good I look!" is such a pervasive campaign against fat people, the positive campaigns (like the one Dove had recently, and "activists" like Beth Ditto, etc. promote) can't even be heard above the din.

I didn't want to make this political, but this is just a little beef I have with advertising...

Brenda
I can't see why talking down on people who lose, is different from talking down on people who gain. I agree that it sucks when curvy icons lose weight and sometimes it goes too damn far (like these photos) and someone needs to say something...but if you constantly bash "skinny bitches" (like Monique..who apparently is losing weight as we speak:rolleyes:) you're a hypocrite.

I don't think talking negatively about celebrities will change the industry. If you think about it, the last couple of years it has only gotten worse.

BTW I feel sorry for Kirsti Alley, Janet Jackson and Oprah. It should be pretty clear that they all have a serious eating disorder.

ok, rant over.
 

ThatFatGirl

Why am I still here?
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
3,514
Location
, undecided
I'll admit I'm not a huge fan of these "Let's discuss how ugly celebrity's look when they loose weight" type of threads, but this is quite shocking.

She looks like a fucking barbie doll. I bet she's thrilled looking like 90% of the rest of Hollywood.

That's not what this thread is about (and I've protested those types of threads myself in the past). It's about the altering of photographs into unnatural, unreal images that no one could hope to achieve without the use of digital editing.

It must absolutely suck to be a woman and grow older in Hollywood.
 

Suze

Too Vanilla For You
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
2,880
Location
,
That's not what this thread is about (and I've protested those types of threads myself in the past). It's about the altering of photographs into unnatural, unreal images that no one could hope to achieve without the use of digital editing.

It must absolutely suck to be a woman and grow older in Hollywood.
ops, I know. sorry for not keeping things on track!

*jumps out of conversation* :bow:
 

ThatFatGirl

Why am I still here?
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
3,514
Location
, undecided
No need to run, SusieQ! I know what you're saying and I totally get Fatgirl33's point too. I'm just not sure you're talking about the same thing. It isn't so much bashing those celebrities for their weight loss as much as bashing the media accolades for it and the pressure that trickles down to those of us in the real world to try to emulate it, which is of course impossible.

I bet if you took a poll eating disorders run rampant among celebrities. It's beyond sad for them and unfortunate for the rest of us who are constantly told through the media this is the way we should all want to be.
 

Suze

Too Vanilla For You
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
2,880
Location
,
No need to run, SusieQ! I know what you're saying and I totally get Fatgirl33's point too. I'm just not sure you're talking about the same thing. It isn't so much bashing those celebrities for their weight loss as much as bashing the media accolades for it and the pressure that trickles down to those of us in the real world to try to emulate it, which is of course impossible.

I bet if you took a poll eating disorders run rampant among celebrities. It's beyond sad for them and unfortunate for the rest of us who are constantly told through the media this is the way we should all want to be.
I get Fatgirl33 point as well, I really do! but lately there's been a couple of "*** has lost weight and look fug" type of threads. I'm simply not a fan of those. :/
I realize you started this thread for different reasons. Didn't mean to hijack:)
 

LalaCity

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
3,044
Location
,
I don't think anyone who's seen these pictures doesn't think that she's been photoshopped to within an inch of her life...

The one where she is lying on the fur is just...odd. Her lower half is all out of proportion to her top half, her thighs are really short compared to length of her arms and calves, and her feet are much larger than her ass. I honestly think it might be someone else's lower half, or parts of someone else's lower half, photoshopped in. Something is definitely not right there.
 
Top