I Choose To Believe
There has been a a great deal of controversy over the past two days in the UK about whether or not the Vanity Fair shoot of Kate Winslet has been airbrushed and photoshopped beyond recognition. Whether it is because I love Kate Winslet, or because I know how hard she was slammed for the extensive airbrushing that was done when she posed for GQ, I choose to believe that this time she means it when she said the only thing removed were some blemishes and altering some skin color to make it blend.
In her earlier spread for GQ it was revealed they basically made her several sizes thinner and she came out and apologized for that. Kate has always been on the side of women being proud of who they are and what they have and that no one should shy away from a curvier figure. Obviously as a man of extensive curves, I also find there is nothing wrong with them. To me every person should be proud of who they are and how they look and if someone doesn't like it, screw them. I think she looks great in these photos, but I will let you decide if they have been extensively altered or not. I say they have not. 
21 comments:
Wow, I had no idea that was KW.
Well great makeup and hair does wonders, lol.
First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Kate Winslet. Even as a "curvier" female, she has a body most of us real women envy, and many men crave. No airbrushing needed.
As for the pictures, (and only judging by the two shots shown), I would tend to agree that it was more of a case of creative posing, lighting and makeup rather than extensive airbrushing which make her look so model-like. In the first picture, the coat hides much of her curvier parts. In the second one, the fluffy fur and concave couch help hide anything that might be misconstrued as a tummy bulge. If it's not a realistic representation of her, blame the photographer and not the cleanup crew.
I didn't even recognize her in the cover picture.
She's got a Sharon Tate-Valley of the Dolls thing going on. Great pix.
kellylyn i was just going to say the same..if the shot needs to be touched up THAT much it was the photog who failed.
she looks fab here, good for her.
lighting is key in any shoot.
Well, I have met Kate Winslet. I was actually introduced to her, shocking I know. She was quite slender. Maybe a size 6 or an 8. What I want you to convey is her presence. Her and Tilda Swinton are the two very different actresses but they have the same feel about them. She is just a big wow. This is what I think people are responding to.
I choose to believe this is mostly Kate. Kate's weight goes up and down, she could be on the thinner side at the moment. And the poses are very strategic to bring out her best features and hide the ones that might be a little unsightly...like her mommy abs. Its what a good photographer does: finds a way to hide the bad shit and bring out the good.
With all the celebrities coming out on Magazine covers looking not themselves why should Kate W. be any different. Even thought it is her body that does not mean the photographer will not do some altering to make it look way better.
I love Kate Winslet. She might be thinner, but I agree there was a lot covering up part of her body in the photos. But who cares. Well, I don't anyway. I think she's gorgeous no matter what size. And this is another reason why I love her: "Everyone can commit to 20 minutes,” she says of working out, “especially if there’s a glass of Chardonnay afterwards.”
Kate Winslet is absolutely gorgeous in ALL of the photos (even the candid one). There was no more retouching than is done in any other mag photo. There is much to be said for great lighting and an expert makeup artist. I was in Anastasia's Brow Salon in Beverly hills, and the makup artist offered to touch up the dark circles I had under my eyes. In 2 minutes I had an even skin tone and the darks circles were gone. When done correctly I think anyone can look ten years younger.
If you want to see something extenslvely altered just take a good look at Nicole Kidman
She is so freakin' hot. I'd totally go bi for her.
It seems as if all actresses come out looking exactly the same.
I think she's gorgeous. At least she looks natural, unlike so many other actresses out there.
I'm with you, Enty. Plus, I agree with KellyLynn on the lighting/positioning aspect.
Another thing that was pointed out on another blog (yes, Enty! I was visiting another blog but I LOVE yours!!!) is that the whole spread was about Catherine Denueve glamor and that's why she was posing like that when she normally looks so, well, normal. Like us.
Kate: U Go Girl!
True about actresses looking alike, and not all that natural. The cover shot looks like Sharon Stone with extensions.
There will never be a time when I don't want to do crazy sexy times with Kate Winslet.
Ever.
I'm with you, Dave. She's a girl crush, for sure. :-) And she's all dolled up like my all-time FAVORITE girlcrush, Catherine Deneuve!
I know Vanity Fair isn't exactly ~above~ airbrushing, but I think they're moneyed enough to hire people like Annie L. and Patrick Demarchawhatshisface-- people who are incredibly skilled at making already very good-looking people look absolutely stunning. Was she wearing a shitton of makeup? Of course. But I also think the radiance and glowiness is natural, because Kate's gorgeous even in candids.
of course they airbrushed the hell out of it.
Maybe touched up a bit, but she still looks like Kate. And you can tell she's a "curvier" woman in these photos, IMO. She isn't fat, she just doesn't look sickly/anorexic like most of Hollywood.
She's lovely
Post a Comment