Commentary
Kerry Washington Criticizes 'Adweek' For Photoshopped Cover
- by Erik Sass , Staff Writer @eriksass1, April 6, 2016
While a number of big consumer magazines have been criticized for “touching up” the images of women on their covers and in their pages using Photoshop, the trend didn’t extend to trade publications – at least until now.
This week, Kerry Washington, who won fame playing the role of Olivia Pope in “Scandal,” issued a gentle rebuke to Adweek for allegedly doctoring her photo on the cover of the ad industry pub’s April 4 issue.
Washington confirmed what many fans had already noted online, namely, that Adweek apparently lightened her skin and photoshopped her nose to be smaller for the cover photo, which delves into Washington’s role forging partnerships with brands for her shows.
It’s not clear exactly how much photo editing actually took place. In a response to Washington’s post, Adweek editorial director James Cooper stated that the only change made to the photo was to increase the volume of her hair. And it’s worth noting that some of the same effects can be achieved with a range of photo-editing software, as simple filters can lighten skin tone, and overexposing photos can also contribute to apparent lightening.
Still, Washington seemed fairly confident that her image had been altered, as conveyed in her dignified Instagram post on the subject, which read in part:
“I love Adweek. It's a publication I appreciate. And learn from. I've long followed them on Twitter. And when they invited me to do a cover, I was excited and thrilled. And the truth is, I'm still excited. I'm proud of the article. And I like some of the inside images a great deal.
"But, I have to be honest...I was taken aback by the cover. Look, I’m no stranger to Photoshopping. It happens a lot… Yesterday, however, I just felt weary. It felt strange to look at a picture of myself that is so different from what I look like when I look in the mirror. It’s an unfortunate feeling.”
Cooper’s equally gracious response reads: “Kerry Washington is a class act. We are honored to have her grace our pages. To clarify, we made minimal adjustments, solely for the cover’s design needs. We meant no disrespect, quite the opposite. We are glad she is enthusiastic about the piece and appreciate her honest comments.”
Last year, Washington claimed that InStyle magazine also lightened her skin in its cover photo. InStyle attributed the difference in her appearance to photo lighting.
Erik Sass is editor of Publishers Daily. You can reach Erik at eriksass@gmail.com.
This subject is right in my wheelhouse.
The only sure way to know how much post-production work was done on the Adweek cover photo is to view the cover and the original image, side-by-side, with the imaging program's "history" window displayed. Anything else is guesswork.
Without getting too far into details, the fact is that capturing accurate skin tones is one of the most difficult things to do in photography. Before the digital camera era, some film manufacturing companies concentrated almost entirely on the reproduction of skin tones. And even though digital photography and post-processing imaging programs have made that task easier, many pro shooters will use specific camera makes and models when shooting skin tones.
In the Adweek situation, as they explained in their response. how the image adjustments were handled in post processing depended on a number of issues, including the overall brightness of every component on the cover, including the text, the clothing, the background and the lighting on Kerry Washington herself, and how all those elements worked together visually.
But if they did in fact alter the shape of her nose, that's unacceptable.
The only sane way out of this for Adweek would have been to get Kerry Washington's written approval before publishing. Here's a link to a Google images page, showing various photos of Kerry, including the Adweek cover:
Sorry about that failed attempt at posting a link.
No worries Chuck, thank you for throwing some light (ha ha) on the subject. Always helpful to have an informed professional opinion!
Erik: I agree, ... I think having an informed professional opinion in these comments would be a great idea! You'll let me know when one arrives? (to very loosely paraphrase Ghandi)
While I appreciate your detailed explanation those of us in the African American advertising and marketing community understand the practice of the black faces made lighter or even darker. I recall the OJ Simpson/Time Magazine cover where it was the opposite. Time made OJ's face darker while Newsweek ran the photo in its original color. Time recieved a lot of criticism for its decision to make OJ look more "menacing" on its cover.
In this case Ms. Washington's comments are spot on especially since this is not the first time this happened. The lightening of facial images of African Americans for sake of ensuring that readers aren't turned off nor or advertisers is not surprising.
Maybe to make her look less "menacing" to their users?
She is a huge crossover performer and the fact that her image was altered minimizes her brand and for her it's all about her brand. So no need to alter her image. I agree with her comments and hope that future images of her are not altered for marketing purposes.