'Sports Illustrated' does extremely minimal retouching. Other publications, however... phew. They do a lot; I've watched myself be Photoshopped before. It. Is. The. Worst.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
We all have our vanities. The retouching magazines like 'Vogue' do is the professional version of the retouching we do when we, for example, apply Instagram filters to the pictures we take and share on our social networks.
I do think it's important for young women to know that magazine covers are retouched. People don't really look like that.
If I were ever to grace the pages of 'Vogue,' I would want my image retouched because the audience is so vast. There is great vulnerability in being exposed to that many judging eyes. I feel no small amount of guilt over this willingness to surrender my ideals.
Nothing wrong with retouching - nothing new about retouching.
One of the difficulties of photography is that it is much better at being explicit than at being reticent.
I've seen so many photographers rush to do books the minute they start shooting, but one great thing about photography is that the images don't go away, so the more I sit with these images, the more I learn which ones have had the most impact.
Every single model wants to be in 'Sports Illustrated,' and I feel extremely blessed to have that opportunity.
I'm an amateur photographer, apart from being a professional one, and I think maybe my amateur pictures are the better ones.
I respect newspapers, but the reality is that magazine 'photojournalism' is finished. They want illustrations, Photoshopped pictures of movie stars.
I never thought I'd make the pages of 'Sports Illustrated', because I've always been skinny.