Demi Moore’s hip, and handling the truth
[12/27 update: W Korea Takes My Side, Fixes Demi's]
On Tuesday night, I received an aggressive and threatening letter from Martin Singer, Demi Moore’s attorney. It is marked “Confidential Legal Notice – Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited”. However, since Mr. Singer and I have no confidentiality agreement, and it provides essential context to the matter at hand, I have decided to publish it.
I’ll start by expressing how bizarre it feels to be immersed in a controversy that should be no controversy at all. The question of whether a celebrity photo was clumsily retouched is not one I am particularly proud of spending my mental cycles on.
When I originally pointed out (in a friendly, lighthearted way) a simple retouching blooper, I had no inkling of the total shitstorm that would follow. It gained momentum quickly, and I commented to several media outlets on the matter, always sure to frame it fairly: I have no problem with digital retouching (do it all the time), no problem with Demi Moore (she’s a beautiful woman), think the image is a great shot (kudos, Mert and Marcus) – I simply thought the missing hip-chunk was funny. I thought we could all laugh about it for the day (maybe tack it up on a retoucher’s wall of shame) and move on to the far more important things. We are all human; we all make mistakes (me, more than my fair share.)
But as the story gained traction, Ms. Moore published what she claimed was the original, while describing my initial commentary as “bullshit”. Several media outlets backtracked, folding like the lawn chairs so many of them are. Some went so far as to say she had “proven her point” and that I had some apologizing to do. Well, I take no pride in arguing over something so totally vacuous, but I do take great pride in my reputation, my integrity, my visual and creative acumen, and my credibility as a journalistic source. In fact, as Mr. Singer and his client are undoubtedly well aware, I have invested an entire lifetime building them, and my career and livelihood depend on them. And believe it or not, in the eyes of many (especially in a place like Hollywood) something as dumb as this can deal a serious and embarrassing blow.
So I knew sitting idly by while my veracity was attacked was not an option, especially in light of the huge reach of Ms. Moore’s words and my sincere belief that I was right. So after sleeping on it, I put my money where my mouth was and offered $5,000 to a charity of her choosing if she proved it really was the original. Unsurprisingly, my offer fell on deaf ears. In the following weeks it quieted down, and I thought (and hoped) it was over – until I received Mr. Singer’s letter.
I spent several days considering how to respond. On one hand, I do not want a fight over something so pointless; but on the other, my personal reputation is under attack.
Mr. Singer: I did not insinuate that your client was untruthful or hypocritical. I did not imply or infer that the photo was manipulated at her behest. I simply said that the photo had very obvious signs of clumsy retouching, most particularly what appeared to me (and thousands of others) to be a missing chunk of hip.
And I absolutely stand by my statements.
I also have a very hard time understanding what is “defamatory” about describing an image as retouched. Digital retouching is an important part of modern publishing and photography workflow – especially in commercial and editorial fashion photography. I doubt a single image has graced a major magazine cover in the past decade without being altered in some way. Ms. Moore’s implication that her image went straight from camera to cover is incredible, whether she believes it or not. Simply put, this never happens.
In the statements solicited by Mr. Singer, W‘s Dennis Freedman says “no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image.” Fashion photographers Mert and Marcus say there was “ABSOLUTELY no retouching on her hips or waist or legs.” This brings Nick Paumgarten’s 2004 New Yorker article to mind, wherein Mert and Marcus’ digital artistry is discussed extensively. In describing Mert and Marcus’ work, Mr. Freedman himself said:
there is an artificiality about it that can be upsetting.”
Upsetting?? Frankly, I love it! But regardless, their recent statements fail the straight face test. Even without serious digital forensics, zooming in on Ms. Moore’s “original” image reveals either a major physical deformity in her left thumb – or the painfully obvious artifacts of clumsy retouching:
And digging a bit deeper, if we compare Ms. Moore’s “original” with the final W cover photo, we see unequivocal signs of digital retouching (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Below, I layered the two images atop one other and animated three small sections to accentuate the changes. The loops are very short, so you may have to replay them a couple of times.
One, pay special attention to the area of her hip inside the “R” and against her left hand:
Two, the contours of her right thigh and hand are changed:
Three, the waist and upper chest are tweaked:
And these animations merely represent the changes between Demi’s “original” and the final cover; they say nothing about whatever retouching occurred upstream of the two public images, and the public consensus seems to be that they were significant. Regardless, there can be no doubt as to whether the cover image was retouched.
Mr. Singer describes his client’s appearance of great importance to her career and livelihood. I absolutely understand and respect that, and never said a single negative word in that regard. This was not about her; it was about noticing a mistake. In fact, as this story was exploding and W sat silent, I spoke out in Ms. Moore’s defense several times, even expressing exasperation that she had been forced to explain the mistakes of others. Those remarks are widely available throughout the public record.
I would also like to reiterate that, while my livelihood is not dependent on my appearance (thank God!), it is dependent on my personal reputation and my perception within the media, technology, and entertainment industries as someone of integrity, reliability, and candor. Thus, Mr. Singer, I urge you to seriously consider the damage your client’s public statements have had on me, as well as the serious discrediting effects of the public statements made by those acting at your and your client’s behest. Your collective implications – and actual allegations – that I have been dishonest, deceptive, or defamatory are themselves seriously damaging. This is most particularly true because your allegations are fully and absolutely unsupported by the facts.
Finally, Mr. Singer: your demand that I retract my statements is a demand that I do further unwarranted and costly damage to a reputation you have already deliberately tarnished. Demanding an apology adds insult to this injury. Obviously, neither of these will be forthcoming.
On the contrary, I demand a complete retraction of all statements made or solicited by you, your client(s), and W that denied this retouching, and served to deliberately impugn my credibility and that of countless others who made similarly fair and accurate observations. I further demand a sincere and prominent public apology.
In closing, what might be most surprising about this is that Ms. Moore has clearly embraced the incredible power of the web. As she surely knows, what makes the web beautiful is its rich diversity of opinions and ideas; free expression is in its DNA. But by asking her attorney to intimidate, bully, and silence critics and fans who are guilty of nothing more than speaking unpleasant truths, she is enabling conduct that strikes at the very heart of free expression.
So let’s get this behind us and talk about something that actually matters.
# # #
Be cool; add me
Congrats on developing such a keen eye! However, I’m pretty sure that the “major physical deformity in her left thumb” you describe is actually just part of her thumb obscured by the dress.
With Modest Acumen, Adam
I think the lawyers need an editor. I didn’t get very far (first paragraph – “… confirmed that they made no alternations whatsoever to the shape, size or appearance of Ms. Moore’s hips, legs or waist…”), but I think they meant “alterations” instead of “alternations.” The latter just doesn’t make any sense, unless they’re trading hips.
Also, regardless, it is incredible indeed to claim any photo published in any magazine these days endured zero editing. Good for you and very well-versed.
Congratulations on standing up to these bullying tactics.
You have proved your case without a shadow of doubt.
Moore should be ashamed of herself … and pigs might fly.
I hope you get your apology. It’s certainly warranted.
An excellent response to a preposterous set of charges by Ms. Moore and her legal team. It is laughable for her to claim that her photo was untouched in any way. Photos of her by the paparazzi and photos of her that grace advertisements and magazine covers look completely different; there is no surgical procedure, injection, or topical treatment that can erase every single wrinkle a 47 year old woman would have. She needs to just move on.
Kudos Anthony! How you are handling this situation, with such earnest candor, transparency, and good-naturedness will undoubtedly only boost your own brand reputation and image. Hope this doesn’t consume too much of your time, and we can still break bread in L.A. week of Jan 19th. Pulling for you.
I am an artist as well as an art student and photographer, mostly with black and white film and just diverging into digital media, but I’ve been using photoshop for more than 10 years, and although I love the program it’s very easy (albeit sometimes a lot of work) to create a beautiful lie that will pass muster. Anyone who has any common sense and observes the things they consume know that it is common fact that Photoshop and other adome mediums are used visual medias we consume. The photographer here is in the right to state his observations, based on experience and facts and display it however he so wishes. He’s done a good job of documenting these facts. I just saw another commenter on Boing Boing say that to have carried off this W cover it would have taken more than 50 edits. I’ve done projects where I’ve had hundreds of edits, so just based on my amateur perception alone I can add my voice (however unnecessary) to this discussion in saying that it is fact that somewhere along the line the original photos didn’t make it onto the cover because most photographers have use photoshop, lightroom and any number of editing tools as their default. Even the best pictures are edited, either digitally or manually. The picture published on the cover of W magazine clearly shows disproportion by the hip, thigh, hands and upper body. It is a fact. It happened. Instead of trying to hide it, maybe all the wonders that have been attributed to photoshop should be celebrated. But of course it’s not a one sided story and photoshop can also be used to create and continue lies. This cover is a lie and a negligent one at that.
Demi Moore, whom I love, admire, and is beautiful does not walk around with a pound of flesh missing from her left hip and her fingers are not elongated contured and normal in that position nor is her left thumb broken, or disjointed as it looks like in the figure. I spend many hours mastering trickery with photoshop. It’s an artist trade, a cheat sheet, and our slight of hand. People look and wonder and fall in love with such photographs without truly analyzing what went into making the final copy of a picture of the original shot. People, myself included, just need to think.
I have no issue with Mr. Anthony Citrano’s analysis at all. Thanks for being clear and true Anthony – and also, great shots from your own portfolio!
Bravo! Very well done and beautifully written. I won’t be holding my breath for an apology, but you are most assuredly due one. A very large, public apology…and perhaps $50,000 donated to the charity of *your* choice.
Ms. Moore is a very beautiful woman. This photo flap and the accusations are having a very negative image projected of this beauty of hers. Why would Hollywood or any media agency have editors if not for editing, seems like a waste if they are there just to be on the payroll. Ms. Moore: there is nothing evil or wrong about a photo that has been edited. Sometime the camera does not capture an image completely because of lighting or other unavoidable circumstances. Please let this go for the sake of your own reputation and fans.
Photographer and retoucher for 25 years. Brilliant summary there.
It’s all over for any litigation – the digital files will scream with fractured pixels around those areas.
“Judge, I call as Evidence A : ‘The Raw File’ “..!
Stand tall Anthony , your opinion is very succinct and evenly presented..
I saw the article mentioned in MSN entertainment, and looked back to overview both positions and read the various illustrating descriptions that had the actual photogenic proof on video loops that was the subject of some very strong although questionable statements. It seems that the only damage that was made on admissions of this cover photo was that of the one this was done to give in tribute to, that of Ms. Moore. Apparently taken with the usual positive comments by her fellow colleagues in the business, she enthusiastically embraced their comments and went forth and submitted the false implications onto herself.
Therefore how can any individual coming in after the fact, be held responsible for merely observing that besides the factors that were held in time for statements made, be wrong for observing what was not readily apparent to the naked and untrained eye, and just doing his professional duties by denouncing that this was not the image that was represented by those that made that claim as “not being retouched”? Whether it was Ms. Moore or the other entities involved in this publication, that seems to be where the matter of accountability lies.
And thus, the matter as explained in the letter from the attorneys of the parties that were being represented cannot prove that there was actually any stake to, ” one who publishes defamatory statement ” and further cannot have done this with ” resulting in injury to the reputation of the defamation ‘victim’ “….simply because she made herself liable by submitting claim to that which she already knew to be a falsification of her own. This is not anything in which can be scrutinized in the court of law, but more or less in view of the public eyes of popularity and celebrity status on integrity.
Once you add authority to hide your shame, you ultimately lose your battle in a public forum and make your impressions more degrading to your public image, doing twice the damage than to try and save face to this travesty. But it only goes to show the weakness that comes with much adoration with something as time tested as one’s own self image represented in publications as popularly viewed as this one was and held to a much higher scrutiny than others. As far as possible damage to your persona Ms. Moore, you would be best to note how your profession as of lately has not been forthcoming with any ‘new’ ventures on the big screen. If this was one last push so to speak to gain any momentum you thought you may still have, you became your own worst enemy and sunk to a new low as far as being true to yourself and your reputation as far as statements made and believed to be true are viewed. And to top it off, Ms. Moore, you have made no public acknowledgment of your transgressions which I might add, is more appalling. Whether this be your career end, no one can state that for sure.
But in trying to undo someone elses you may have propelled his to further new heights, as if was not already in the best position one can be at this time.
Good job and well done to Mr. Citrano for having the nature of being true to his profession and to speak the truth, in a business where we accentuate, validate and celebrate the lie!
Wunderbar!
“no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image.” Oh yes. I believe in it like Clintons „I did not have sexual relations with that woman.“
I am no photographer and no image expert but I can still see that there is something wrong with that picture. It really looks like there is a part of the hip missing. If you extend the hip-line down to the leg, you will see it does not match. It is obvious that something is wrong with that picture.
Mr Citrano, I have been behind the camera for the past 27 years and you are 100 percent correct about your observation of sloppy photoshop work. I applaud your response to the attack leveled by Ms Moore’s attorney. Any art director, photo editor or photographer would agree with you about your claim that all raw images are re-touched before they are published. Ms moore should spend more time on perfecting her craft rather then lashing out at other artist.
Any celebrity claiming that a cover shot was unaltered is about as preposterous as someone saying that Elvis is still alive.
A very intelligent response! Well thought out. Keeping your composure, and destroying them with truth and wisdom. They have truly made a mockery of themselves.
Nicely done – Articulate, persuasive and factual.
Good for you Mr. Citrano, these Hollywood celebs are insecure freaks and I’m glad you’ve stood up to them. Her attorney is an idiot prostitute throwing out a bunch of b.s. legalese just to freak you out. Glad it didn’t work!
To ms demi moor, Ms moore, Do you have nothing better to do with your time than to bully people? This man has done nothing to you, and it is very clear you are wrong and he is write, how old are you 50 something?I know you are used to yes people in your life but you are so out of line. Do everyone a favor and leave the guy alone. Good day.
Mick in Seattle.
Bring on the law suiet and humiliate Demi & her lawyers.
She’s 1996 and long over due for retirement.