The New Intimacy

Annoying lingerie photoshopping

Skip to last post
Set alerts
Updates
Forum search
Contributor: Petite Valentine Petite Valentine
Have others noticed that the model pictures of some lingerie items make them appear opaque when they are actually transparent?

I think the manufacturers provide these pictures, I just don't know why they do this. Victoria's Secret has a policy of photoshopping "anything that might embarrass a model," like armpit hair, however most of the lingerie here is meant for adult retail outlets. It's unnecessary to airbrush out anatomy. I don't want to purchase something because I think it has a lining, when in reality it reveals the full monty. Why do they do this?
07/30/2011
  • Treat Her! Gift Set For Women For $69.99 Only
  • Complete lovers gift set
  • Upgrade Your Hands-Free Play!
  • Long-distance pleasure set for couples
  • Save Extra 20% On Love Cushion And Toy Set!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
Contributor: Ms. Spice Ms. Spice
i think it's to protect the more conservative buyers of the sex toy and lingerie sites. which doesn't make sense, because if you're on a sex toy site, then i assume you're going to have to be comfortable with anatomy and sex, right? i think it's kind of dumb personally and i agree with what you're saying
07/30/2011
Contributor: Jul!a Jul!a
I think it's because it's the same pictures that's used on the physical packaging that quite often ends up in stores where minors aren't specifically banned (places like Spencers, etc). I don't have a problem with things like nipples and buttcracks being airbrushed out for reasons like that, but it would be nice if things were shown as being see through when they were. I know I've gotten more than one piece of lingerie that I thought was opaque when it was very transparent...
07/30/2011
Contributor: Petite Valentine Petite Valentine
Quote:
Originally posted by Jul!a
I think it's because it's the same pictures that's used on the physical packaging that quite often ends up in stores where minors aren't specifically banned (places like Spencers, etc). I don't have a problem with things like ... more
That does make sense, but it's still annoying. I'd rather the models wore invisinips or cuchinis underneath. Those would provide coverage (somewhat) without giving a false impression about the transparency of the actual lingerie.
07/30/2011
Contributor: ~LaUr3n~ ~LaUr3n~
I've never had an issue with this because I find it easy to see when something is opaque versus transparent. If I can see the tone of the skin under the lingerie matching that of bare skin, it means my nipples are going to be seen. I've never been surprised.
07/31/2011
Contributor: Elaira Elaira
they could at least use those fake breast covers. It just looks strange and takes away from the buyers first impression when it is not shows as it is.
07/31/2011
Contributor: MaryExy MaryExy
I try to read the description very carefully if I'm questioning the material, but most things I buy are lace or obviously opaque things.

Oh, and I like it if they use stars or something, whether computer images or pasties.
07/31/2011
Contributor: Kkay Kkay
Hearing this actually makes me leery to buy it online, because I would want a realistic view of what I was getting.
07/31/2011
Contributor: xilliannax xilliannax
Quote:
Originally posted by Jul!a
I think it's because it's the same pictures that's used on the physical packaging that quite often ends up in stores where minors aren't specifically banned (places like Spencers, etc). I don't have a problem with things like ... more
agreed
05/31/2012
Contributor: Mwar Mwar
it gets to me sometimes. Damn you, photoshop!
05/31/2012