I would never give British media personality Charlene White a serious journalism assignment based on her unethical, unprofessional mangling of Cindy Crawford’s photo. Now that the facts — rather than White’s purported explanation of what she was doing with Crawford’s unretouched photo — have come to light, we are reminded of the incredibly low standards embraced by so many people who call themselves journalists.

A Tweet That Rocked Cindy’s World

For background, Charlene White came into possession of an unretouched photo of Cindy Crawford (above), one purported to be from an upcoming April 2015 spread in Marie Claire Magazine in which the supermodel purposefully had no Photoshop work done on her images.

White Tweeted the image with the message ‘Cindy Crawford’s April spread in Marie Claire features 100% non-retouched photos. Take a bow Ms. C.’

I’m not sure anyone working in the fashion world, or any follower of fashion, has ever called Cindy Crawford ‘Ms. C’. Ms. White is sounding very insider in her Tweet, but reality is that she isn’t at all ‘in the know’ in the world of fashion supermodels.

Naomi Campbell should read White the riot act, Brit girl style.

Marie Claire responded, clarifying that the photo’s origins are actually from a December 2013 cover story from Marie Claire Mexico and Latin America — and that the unretouched version is a leak.

Woops, Charlene!

The Published Photoshoot

Here are two images of Cindy from that photoshoot and a link to the entire editorial at AOC.

Marie Claire then wrote:

No matter where the photo came from, it’s an enlightenment—we’ve always known Crawford was beautiful, but seeing her like this only makes us love her more. And as she told us at the premiere of her new documentary last week: ‘I really think—at any age—it’s learning to be comfortable in your own skin. …If women would treat themselves with the same kind of love they give to their friends, that would be such a great gift we could give ourselves. …What makes you the most attractive is self-confidence. That’s what people see.’

(The documentary referenced is Crawford’s film ‘Hospital in the Sky’ dedicated to raising awareness of and helping to eliminate avoidable blindness in poor countries. Crawford was in Peru.)

Back to the business of women’s bodies. Agreed, Marie Claire. Cindy look fantastic, stretch marks and cellulite included.

Today’s High Definition World

In today’s world of high definition images, high-contrast lighting and a Twittersphere that feasts on eating people alive, I don’t know too many women who want to go totally unretouched in photos.

Cindy Crawford has not commented on the Charlene White leak through her representative. My understanding of the law is that photographer John Russo owns the image unless Crawford’s contract with him gives her control. Typically, very successful models co-own the rights to their images. Russo would never leak that photo, so it most likely came from an underling in someone’s organization — the model, the photographer, the retoucher, the magazine.

Charlene White’s Agenda

One must ask, then, about Charlene White’s agenda with Cindy Crawford.

One question no one seems to be asking is how did Charlene White get that photo and why didn’t she second source the facts around it? Was the purported story of Cindy going unretouched just too tantalizing to check out with people who would know the facts?

What I see here is a very aggressive young woman using Cindy Crawford to advance herself and her own agenda, without second-sourcing and, frankly, triple-sourcing from reputable people who would know the facts — like Marie Claire or John Russo or Cindy’s agency.

It’s clear that a plum photo of a very famous person dropped into White’s personal universe. It dealt with a timely and important topic for women — self image and how we compare ourselves in a Photoshop world — and White moved to make a name for herself.

White told CNN that she Tweeted the photo because:

“Women come in all sorts of different shapes and sizes. I think it’s important to see all sorts of body shapes on our screens and in our magazines so that people have a true reflection of what people look like.”

Life In A High Definition World

I promise you that in the light of real life, the photo that White celebrates isn’t a true reflection of what Cindy Crawford looks like. This lighting is very harsh, much harsher than real light outside or at home. It’s dirty and gritty, and its effects are changed significantly in the images that were published. Sometimes photographers are shooting for multiple sources at the same time. The photo above is NOT Marie Claire material. Shot with an incredibly high-definition lens, every pore on Cindy’s body is magnified in this flat, two-dimensional view of the model.

Responding to the controversy, the Telegraph interviewed photographer Dan Burn-Forti in this excellent, information-rich article about the world of Photoshop. Burn-Forti says:

‘If people have some spots or bruising, I take it out. I figure it is a bit mean to leave these in – everything is so high definition these days, it leaves nothing to the imagination. It is much harsher than in real life.’

A few years ago a set of images was taken of me for a book about beautiful women over 50. Quite simply, I didn’t recognize myself in the images, ones so harsh as to be frightening. I was so concerned about these images going public that I paid the photographer considerable $$$ for them and had a total release of all his image rights granted to me.

The Female Gaze

There is no doubt that Photoshop is out of control in today’s world, but so is high-definition technology. AOC has an 8-year history of speaking on this topic while exploring misogyny and agism in the fashion industry. Cindy Crawford is featured and quoted many times on this website as a voice of reality and self-affirming kindness for women, and we’ll be summarizing the supermodel’s best articles for readers.

Cindy Crawford said about pregnancy and her stomach:

It’s a huge change for your body. You don’t even want to look in the mirror after you’ve had a baby, because your stomach is just hanging there like a Shar-Pei.

For Charlene White to celebrate Cindy Crawford’s image in this way, without verifying that one of the world’s greatest models wants to be tossed around like a commodity in cyberspace with her stretch marks showing, leaves me speechless.

White promotes the ‘real’ Cindy’s physical body, not her philanthropy or great mothering skills. Why does White do this? To make other women feel better about themselves, she says. So Cindy Crawford becomes fodder for the blame game? This is certainly what every woman strives for.

And you think the male gaze is tough!

Charlene White reminds me of someone who ran over me a couple years ago. The situation wasn’t identical, but I know your type, Ms. W. How about you doing your TV show with no makeup and then you tell viewers whether or not your face — Botoxed or not — lensed by the high-definition camera for a high-definition, big-screen TV is your ‘real’ self? I dare you.

Time For A Reality Check

As one retoucher told the Telegraph:

Everything that is presented to the public is a fiction in one way or another. Everything – be it words, video or pictures – is an edit of what people experience, with a point of view. I feel people should just be educated better about the nature of what they get.

The Supermodel’s husband Randy Gerber released his own recent photo of his wife on his Instagram account. I guess he just had a friendlier lens than John Russo. ~ Anne

Link to Cindy Crawford articles and editorials on AOC.