The mag has posted this interview with Dora Somosi, director of photography, who claims her perfect chest is simply perfect.
Okay, so did we mess with January Jones’ cleavage?
“No, absolutely not.”Do lighting and perspective matter at all?
“Terry (Richardson, the photographer who took the shot) likes to work with harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow—that, and body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger.”So any comparisons between the cover shot and something taken on, say a red carpet…
“…are a little ridiculous. Terry Richardson prides himself on unretouched pictures, and we only hire photographers who operate that way. We like a natural look—there’s very minimal retouching.”So what kind of retouching do we do?
“We’ll take a pimple out or soften under eye dark circles. Or maybe there’s a wrinkle in the shirt, or even dust on the lens. January Jones needed no help. Trust me.”
5 Comments
I notice they don’t discuss other ways of enhancing her cleavage — like strategically placed tape on the sides to give a fuller, rounder inner curve — all in all, I don’t think it is particularly flattering pic of her… but I’m a straight female, which I guess isn’t the target audience
Who really cares. I’m over the whole debate about retouching. Every magazine does it to some extent because in all honest people are more likely to buy a perfect cover than one with flaws. I personally don’t like this picture, I don’t think she looks sexy. I think she looks skanky and cheap.
so tacky
Sorry,but her chest doesn’t look the same in candids
Nspree - I agree, not a very flattering pic at all.
stephi - I agree, shut the fuck up about photoshop.
She’s just really not that attractive of a woman. But boobs and a hot body don’t equal beauty.