at least they use real women, not size 000 models lol

I always thought they seemed remarkably free from cellulite! I still think it's a good idea to see real women in ads. I can't however say that their ad campaign is the reason I buy their products - I think it's the price and the smell. I use the spf15 day lotion every day for those two reasons.

I think Dove is fantastic for trying to change views of what the ideal body image is. I think it's unreasonable to expect them to be 100% real, because these things change with baby steps. Their models have a variety of shapes, which, to me, is the important thing. A little skin retouching is okay.

I think it's a bit hypocritical but I have to agree at least there are different body types in the ad.

"its a little depressing"? who freaking cares if they photoshop like everyone else?

theres nothing real about photoshop!!!! very hypocritical!

Hypocrisy isn't the ultimate sin anyway.

I think it's more about the shape of them than how their skin looks. I love seeing a woman with bigger arms or a roundish tummy. I like how there is a variety of body types, and none of them are 00.

I wish they didn't photo shop their models, but I still think it's better to use real women and retouch them then to use a super skinny model and then retouch her.

I think they are hypocrites. But I do like that they show a range of shapes and sizes.

People still got the message of the campaign, and those women after photoshop still look pretty real to me.

I guess I'm dwelling on the "heavily retouched" statement. That's both sad and hypocritical

i do think it is great that they have a range of body sizes reflective of reality. it is quite disappointing that there is heavy retouching going on

i guess the question is, did they shave off inches from their bodies, or just smooth out the skin tones? if it's just a skin tone thing, i don't care. if they reduced their silhouettes, then i think it's an issue.

On one hand, I am hapy they do use real women who have real bodies...but on another hand it is still a little upsetting they do photshop on them
I thoguht they WEREN'T played with! Damn...

It seems like nobody is safe from Photoshopping these days. Even the best bodies out there have at least one flaw. Consumers should just worry about themselves and not dwell so much on what they see in ads. But yeah, their slogan "Campaign for real women" now strikes a hypocritical tone for me.

Still, I have loved Dove's products since I was little. I love that the line has expanded in recent years. The product works for me; I don't care so much about them using a smoke-and-mirror trick that plenty of other industries use in their ads.

I think Dove's campaign is more about size and shape. I could care less if they retouch their models, everyone does that. At least they use real sized women. To me that's WAY more important. Plus, I love Dove.

I just looked up the word, "hypocritical" and there was a shot from the Dove Real Beauty campaign used as an example. Go figure.

Re-touching is a part of modeling/advertising. If supermodels like Giselle and Heidi are getting touched up, why wouldn't other models be? I still think it's a unique ad campaign with a great message to women.

To be honest, this campaign does nothing for me one way or the other. Models don't make me feel bad about myself and I hate the term "real" women. The last time I checked models were humans, therefore "real" women. Maybe I can't look like the model or be as tall as the model, but that doesn't make her less real. People aren't celebrating ALL females when only certain females are categorized as "real". In fact, that's more hypocritical than photoshopping.

A little retouching isn't a big deal to me...I agree that it's more important that they included women of different sizes and body types in this ad.

What I find most hypocritical and depressing is that Dove is owned by the same corporation that owns the 'axe' franchaise...have you all seen the commericals with the blatant exploitation of women being used as mindless bimbo/robots throwing themselves at guys who douse themselves in their product?

Its annoying because, while using 'real' women in their advertising is a step forward, it almost doesnt count because it obviously doesnt reflect the true ideology of the brand...its just a marketing ploy if you ask me...and its working like a charm.

They retouch so it is visually appealing but it doesn't change the size or body types of these real women and how beautiful they are.

Accept your body for what it is!!.... because we sure won't!

I read the article last night, and from what I remember, I think he just touched up their skin a bit (I'm guessing he got rid of cellulite). I don't think he "heavily retouched" it or anything.

On the one hand, I think it's a bit hypocritical to call them "real" when they've been photoshopped. On the other, if it were me, and at least some of my flaws could be airbrushed away - I would want it done!

Just shows how screwy beauty ideals are...

Honestly, people are way too judgmental to really appreciate the message without some touching up to make their skin look flawless. Think of how critical people are when they see celebs and models without makeup.

I love that they are using every day normal woman of all shapes and sizes.

Acceptable to Photoshop: shadows, textures (i.e., a leg that appears hairy in an ad for shaving cream wouldn't make sense), repositioning... stuff like that.

Unacceptable: Changing anything physical on the models.

I think people need to remember that it is above all still an ad for a product, so there is going to be some fixing up to make the picture the sharpest, most appealing photo there can be.
However, changing any physical aspects of the models then makes it hypocritical.

About the photo-shopping; a little retouching of a professional photograph can't be avoided, IMHO. As long as they don't wreck the whole idea of the ad which is to show that fuller women can also be beautiful role models.

However; I am uneasy about this new wave going on in fashion/ad-land where it's cool to say all skinny people are 'fake' and a little plump is the only thing that's 'real'. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that they're widening the spectrum of perceived beauty, but it's not fair to hate on the model-like people! I'm a 5'11"1/2 tall girl, 38-26-36 with very long legs () and this is my natural body type. I've definitely never starved myself or anything! I feel kinda annoyed when people imply such women are 'unreal'.

"However; I am uneasy about this new wave going on in fashion/ad-land where it's cool to say all skinny people are 'fake' and a little plump is the only thing that's 'real'. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that they're widening the spectrum of perceived beauty, but it's not fair to hate on the model-like people! I'm a 5'11"1/2 tall girl, 38-26-36 with very long legs () and this is my natural body type. I've definitely never starved myself or anything! I feel kinda annoyed when people imply such women are 'unreal'."

I'm not model like myself, but this is exactly why the term "real women" is idiotic. All women are real. They exist, you can touch them, therefore they are real. This whole campaign is hypocritical when only certain women are considered "real". And I don't get the size 00 comments either. The type of model they use for a campaign like this isn't a high fashion model and not all high fashion models are super skinny or (un)naturally thin. It's kind of lame that women who look one way have to belittle other females to feel good about themselves. Why can't females in general just feel good about themselves with making stupid comments about other females. It's either a perfectly healthy female being called "fat" when she isn't or a healthy female who actually is model like being call too "thin" (or little boy like) when she's exactly the size her body is built to be. This whole acceptance thing means nothing when catty comments continue to be used.

Not unexpected. The real women campaign has been a very successful advertising strategy... to expect any sincerity behind it is naive at best.

Dove is owned by Unilever. Unilever also owns Axe. Now the only time I've seen tv this decade is when my youngest stepson is around, but the Axe commercials sure seems to use the traditional model type of women, and imply you gents sure to get laid by them if you just use this shower goop.

FWIW Unilever also tests on animals.

Also, as has been stated, real women come in ALL shapes and sizes (including super skinny) by nature. Despite being 5'7", 130lbs is not more a realistic goal for me than my 105lbs would be to someone my height with bigger bones.

I'm torn about this. I think it's great they use "real women," but yeah, I'm a little bothered by their use of photoshop. Then again, if I were featured in these ads, I would want them to touch me up a little.. I suppose it really depends on how much they "fixed."

i doubt if they were HEAVILY retouched. adjectives can change everything. the retouching could just mean they removed the background and made it white...come on man.

No way they retouched those photos? I thought the campaign was about being real. I know they retouch every photo they put in magazines but I thought they didn't with this one. I guess I was wrong...

Almost every photo you see is re-touched these days. Photoshop and digital images make it easier and more cost efficient to do a shoot quickly and then retouch it later. I'm sure that not all the retouching was to remove blemishes and cellulite other things would include stuff like color balance.

Yes they are of all shapes and sizes and I'm all for that. But to say "real women" "real sizes" and touch them up is only adding to the fact that real isn't good enough! Shame on Dove for "false" advertisment....Oprah had them on the show she should call Dove out as I recall she doesn't like liars!

How can they say "real women" have been used, when they have been retouched. I think it's fraud. At least when Jennifer Aniston or whatever is on the cover of a magazine, we know that she could have been retouched. But to send out the message, take a look: This is "real" women, just because they aren't skinny? But their looks have STILL been altered!

Good point Nee! Thank you for sharing that.

Re: retouching: Who cares.

I'm over it.

I give up on the whole 'why does everyone have to be photo-shopped' argument.

I've accepted that we live in a sh*tty appearance-obsessed culture, but all I can do is be happy with the real me, be realistic, and get over it.

Nevertheless, whatever happened to photographers knowing how to work the lighting properly to favor their subjects?

Totally contradictory. Just goes to show you that we will NEVER merely accept any little imperfection, despite that the ideal is completely ridiculous being as NO ONE is perfect. Sure, they may have "broken the mold" or what have you by featuring regular women but the efforts now seem flawed.

Francoise, that's so true. It's so much better to lift yourself up rather than bringing others down.

I have never liked the term "real woman" even when I was much heavier. It implies that skinner women are fake, which is not at all true. There are many different body types and one doesn't make you more of a woman than someone else.

Not surprising -- no bruises, veins, or cellulite is pretty unlikely. I'm young, tall, fit, and thin AND even I have some cellulite. A lot of skinny models do too!

I'm sort of surprised that no one had stretch marks. I'm 23 and a size 6/8 and my stomach is COVERED in stretch marks from a weight gain a few years ago, but these girls are bigger and have gorgeous skin. Could be genetics, but I think that it's things like cellulite and stretch marks that alter the TEXTURE of our bodies (appearance of more fat, etc) that is more illustrative of women.

It's unfortunate that all these women are so smooth - it's not even about proportion but about an unrealistic ideal.

Totally agree with the point "all women are real", good one!

Re the ad, hypocritical to me completely depends on the scope and extent of the re-touching. Taking off scars or razorburn... sure go nuts! Arm-whittling... I'm not such a fan!

Frankly, however, I would totally expect some general clean-up. I wouldn't pose for a billboard-size ad of me in my skivvies unless photoshopping was guaranteed!

One word: Hypocrites.

If it was just simple things like removing the look of leg stubble or red marks, sure I understand. However I get the feeling they went far beyond that.

I've worked in advertising. It doesn't matter the product; there's a specific aim and that aim is to sell, sell, sell. Dove's objective with these ad campaigns is to appeal to real women, and I think that they have done that. It doesn't matter to me that they retouched that photo. You can't look at a photo these days anymore and not notice that it hasn't been retouched. It's just a standard in advertising.

The New Yorker article was fascinating. In college I majored in illustration so I appreciated reading about the careful thought Dangin applies to everything from anatomy to composition.

Having said that, the Dove ads never did anything for me in the first place. It's just more marketing. And if it's done anything to change the perception that petite women like me are also "real women" and not "childlike," I haven't noticed.

I still like the adds. The fact that they use women with realistic body shapes instead of size zero models does the trick. If I were to pose for any add, I'd be happy to have skin imperfections retouched.

The main idea they're trying to convey is that anyone can be beautiful, no matter what size they are. I think that the adds are even more effective just because those women have perfect (although retouched) skin. because they are REALLY beautiful here!

I think it's a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.

Everyone gets photoshopped. But if it's only light retouching, the message from Dove works, and it's something that a lot of people need to hear.