But then something surprising happens in the interview. The writer brings up the real women Dove campaign (remember those ads with all of the normal size ladies in their underwear?) and—lo and behold— Dangin worked on that very project! According him, they weren't so real after all. Here's what he had to say:
"The people who complain about retouching are the first to say, 'Get this thing off my arm.' " I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual "real women" in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. "Do you know how much retouching was on that?" he asked. "But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone's skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive."
What happened next is Dove sent out a very serious denial statement, claiming that nothing like this ever happened, there was no re-touching of any kind and Dangin is more of a "printer" than a retoucher and that the only action taken on these photographs was "removal of dust from the film and minor color correction." In the statement, Dangin also retracted his original quotes.
Do you believe Dove? Because I don't. Why would the retoucher make this up to begin with? I don't see the incentive, it doesn't make any sense. Also, I think the skin in all of these ads looks suspiciously smooth.
But I guess the more important question here is: Does a little airbrushing matter in a situation like this? Does it change the ads' meaning for you if the women were enhanced and retouched?
Today in Madvertising: Should this Tom Ford ad have been banned?
Today in Madvertising: What up Posh?
