Monday, August 3, 2009

Out of Vogue: nipple jewellery



Oh no they didn’t? Oh yes, they did. In one of the more amusing anecdotes to emerge from Vogue Australia's 50th anniversary edition, the magazine Photoshopped out the nipple jewellery sported by both Catherine McNeil and Abbey Lee Kershaw in one shot of Greg Kadel’s edgy 28-page Come as you are spread. Apparently it was a little too edgy for Vogue, which supplied a Photoshopped image to frockwriter. Noone would have been any the wiser had the original not been one of the shots released by Kadel to models.com on Friday (top), with jewellery attached. In a second, less confronting, topless shot of Kershaw, this time sitting on rocks at a beach with McNeil, looking like a pair of mermaids, the magazine has left Kershaw's nipple, nose and belly button rings unretouched.

11 comments:

Style On Track said...

I liked the nipple rings in the picture, it gave it a sense of balance

GT said...

Not a huge fan of body piercing but I think they looked quite beautiful. Not sure why everything has to be photoshopped to death these days...

Stamos said...

Hi Patty, can you ask Vogue why they did this? Their response would be interesting.
Personally, I'm not really a fan of piercing or tatts, but in this case they look hot.

Thanks,
Stamos

Anonymous said...

Poor aussie Vogue, they just cant win can they? Even when they try their hardest to act cool, they end up coming off as a bunch of suburban squares playing dress ups.

Pedestrian Chris said...

I'm quite certain Pedestrian.TV was the first to publish the Vogue nip slip and it was initially overlooked by Frockwriter and everyone else writing about the images. If you did indeed notice it after reading our post we'd appreciate you acknowledging your source as we openly link back to you in our article it's just good internet etiquette.

Rachel Power said...

So much for 'come as you are'...

S.A.A. said...

Is that a joke? That's half the reason why I loved this shot...its the little quirky details like this that I love? Grrrr.

SAA

Annika said...

Did Swarovski stop advertising? Could have been a great credit opp!

Anonymous said...

Thats hysterical , what a bunch of try hards , bet Greg Kadel is laughing at that one !! i bet it was that ropey old editor , time for her to move on with her sad old staff and bring in some new blood , just when i thought they where actually getting cool , h ah ah wankers

Patty Huntington said...

chris -

i do not make a habit of nicking material off other peoples' blogs. in fact the practice is abhorrent to me. it happens to me all the time.

the fact of the matter is that i published this post at 4.27pm monday 3rd AEST, without seeing it anywhere else. yes i initially overlooked it in the shots i posted. i had the vogue-supplied shots from thursday last week, but was unable to post them until monday 3rd. they went up at 10.00am monday. after seeing your daily pedestrian.tv email a little later on and realising that you had also picked up the story, i checked on google news to see exactly when you posted and it said "1 hour ago". at roughly 5.30pm that meant you must have posted at pretty much the same moment. it's a weird coincidence, given that the photoshopped shots had been there since 10.00am monday, but it's possible. i had actually been alerted by a reader, who left a comment at 4.06pm.

your time stamp on the nip slip story says august 2. that's what is also now recorded on google news, which must archive material according to the original time stamp.

but clearly there is something wrong with that time stamp. although you are based in sydney, your settings appear to be based on a northern hemisphere time zone. beyond kadel's release of the original unretouched image to models.com overnight friday, the retouched shot was not "floating around the internet". the only place that shot had been published was frockwriter - and it was published at 10.00am on august 3rd. not august 2nd.

the retouched shot that you used was sourced from frockwriter. this is easy to prove. anyone who drags and drops the shot will see that the ID on the jpeg is "GREGKADEL_VA6". that's what i named it.

DARIAN ZAM said...

Heaven forfend if Vogue did anything less than bland.

Blog Archive