Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Lash Stand

Will new attitudes and regulatory oversight hit delete on some photo retouching in print ads?
  • May 29 2012
Photo: Jeremy Goldberg; Makeup: Sonia Lee for la mer/exclusive artists; Model: Sterling at vision la

The Very Famous Pop Diva insisted that her magazine headshots were absolutely not retouched. That straight white smile? Hers. That luminous skin? Hers. The big beautiful eyes? Hers, all hers, the singer declared, maintaining her Photoshop innocence with the indignity once reserved for chaste women accused of wanton living.

Sitting at home on her couch, Helene DeLillo laughed out loud when she happened across this diva’s protestations on television. A master retoucher and Adobe-recognized guru, DeLillo knows what agents, publicists and agencies so often hide from the talent in order to protect egos and plausible deniability in the culture wars over increasingly aggressive digital post-production.

“There’s always something to fix—always, always” says DeLillo, who fixed the singer’s photos by filling in a chipped tooth, spot erasing her blemishes and extending her eyelashes. “Every single company is retouching, even if they say they’re not,” she says.

The digital fairy dust has fallen so thick yet so imperceptibly since Photoshop was created in 1990 that even celebrities themselves may not realize when the magic wand is working on their behalf—not to mention the clone tool, the healing brush and Liquify, the shape-shifting mother of digital enchantment, introduced in 2000, that morphs objects as easy as pulling taffy. Today, fashion models who appear gaunt can get their pixels plumped to fill in bony joints and jutting ribs. Celebrities, meanwhile, routinely get slimmed down to look more like models.

After a decade of deafening criticism, capped by the American Medical Association condemning unrealistically retouched models as a public health hazard in 2011, digital doctoring may be entering a new age of regulation. In a pivotal decision, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus late last year found that a CoverGirl mascara ad featuring singer Taylor Swift was not “truthful and accurate” because her luxurious eyelashes were enhanced with airbrushing. The finding represents “potentially a sea change,” says Terri Seligman, an advertising and marketing lawyer with Frankfurt Kurnit. “It appears there will be a great deal more scrutiny of image.”

The landmark case began with another Photoshop guffaw, as NAD director Andrea Levine describes her reaction while thumbing through a copy of People magazine during a routine review. It wasn’t the pretty woman in the ad that caught her attention, though. “It didn’t matter to me if she was a known actress or model,” says Levine. “You don’t want to tarnish her. She was just called in to take a photo.” The problem was with what the NAD head saw below the photo, as she leaned in to read the fine print that stated: “Lashes enhanced in post production.”

“It was so over the top that I just burst out laughing,” she says. “[The picture] is a product demonstration. The product is mascara. Mascara should make your eyelashes longer and thicker. When you take a picture, you can’t enhance it.”
Procter & Gamble executives were perhaps justifiably surprised when the NAD opened an initial inquiry. “Retouching is standard, and post-production is standard across all advertising,” says Brent Miller, CoverGirl spokesman. “Everyone does it.”

That used to be the case anyway. The company quickly pulled the ad in a voluntary move that the NAD praised.
Why the regulatory crackdown now? Multiple factors include escalating product claims, increasingly manipulated media images, more scrutiny among watchdog groups and mounting political backlash. As Levine explains it, P&G’s disclaimer combined the red-flag-waving nerve of labeling its faked photo with a pitch stressing that its mascara was “20% lighter” and adds “2x more volume.”

“It depends on the claim that goes with the photo,” says Levine, calling the CoverGirl ad “garden-variety misleading. When you tell me in the ad you’ve tinkered with the demonstration, then I feel compelled to do something.”
 
That standard, Levine says, stems from a TV spot from the 1960s for Colgate-Palmolive Co.’s Rapid-Shave that the Federal Trade Commission found deceptive, a judgement upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ad in question, featuring what appeared to be a piece of sandpaper being shaved, was in actuality a piece of plexiglass covered with sand.

The standard has not traditionally been applied to cosmetics advertising, however. “Beauty shots were beauty shots,” says Seligman. “And the image itself was not necessarily considered a claim.”

Perhaps fittingly, the precedent-setting NAD inquiry involves a high-volume beauty product worn by most women—not to mention one of the most digitally enhanced facial features in advertising. But public reaction to the NAD’s lash-stand was not exactly a big thank you. “The biggest criticism was, ‘Oh, finally, you noticed this has been going on forever,’” says Levine, who had been on the lookout for beauty ads involving issues similar to high-profile cases in the U.K.

British regulators have rejected airbrushing as misleading in a number of celebrity-fronted cosmetics ads, helping inspire legislation aimed at labeling retouched images in France, Norway and recently Arizona. In late March, Israel became the first nation to pass such a law, in part spurred by the U.K.’s notably stricter Advertising Standards Authority and political activism.

In recent high-profile cases, the U.K. independent watchdog group banned two retouched L’Oréal U.K. Ltd. ads as “misleading” and “exaggeration,” following up on complaints from Liberal Democrat MP Jo Swinson. Lancôme’s Teint Miracle two-page spread featured a polished Julia Roberts with the copy: “naturally bare, beautifully flawless.” Maybelline’s ad for the foundation dubbed The Eraser pictured Christy Turlington with patches of naked skin alongside cosmetics-enhanced skin and a disclaimer stating “Illustrated effect.”

In the ASA’s review, debates about feminine beauty veered into the surreal with L’Oréal defending its celebrity images as acceptable because both stars in question are famously lovely, with “fantastic” and “naturally healthy and glowing skin.” Though regulators allowed that both women are known to be gorgeous, L’Oréal declined to cough up pictures before retouching to prove it, ultimately leading to the ban.

American lovers of the simply fabulous need not worry, says Levine, since nixing an ad for being too beautiful would never fly under U.S. ad guidelines. The British finding, she explains, “wasn’t about the performance claims—it was simply that Julia Roberts doesn’t look that young.”

Though photographers have always used lighting, hair, makeup and darkroom tricks to create glamour, what passes for beautiful in ads today has changed dramatically because of the advent of Photoshop, says Dartmouth College’s Hany Farid, a computer science professor who studies photo manipulation. Advertisers, he says, “have been playing a very dirty game.” He sees the modern retouching aesthetic as moving toward a Barbie doll ideal for women and G.I. Joe for men. “They know they’re crossing the line. I think they’re starting to see the writing on the wall.”

But a generation of creatives may not realize how much visuals have changed since Photoshop’s Liquify was introduced with Photoshop 6.0, making it possible to slim bodies, enlarge heads, narrow waists, and pump breasts and muscles with a click and a drag.

“There is nothing in the history of photography that is analogous,” says Kevin Connor, a former Adobe project manager now developing software with Farid to numerically rate to what degree an image has been manipulated. A member of the Photoshop team that launched Liquify, Connor watched as photographers switching from film to digital evolved from purists who derided darkroom tricks into photo artists who freely paint with pixels.
 
Before long, though, celebrity retouching scandals would pick up steam—from actress Kate Winslet’s slimmed thighs to Katie Couric’s thinned torso to Jennifer Love Hewitt’s purportedly censored cleavage. With budget-cutting and high demand for Web images, retouching ran amok. In a low point, the website Photoshop Disasters (psdisasters.com) posted a Ralph Lauren ad showing model Filippa Hamilton looking like a bobble-headed Bratz doll with rubbery arms and a head larger than her pelvis, which is, of course, anatomically impossible.

“People always knew these images were manipulated, but I don’t think they knew how really bad it was,” says Vernon, who runs the website and who declined to give his last name for fear of retaliation. Vernon says he is still chastened by a cease-and-desist order from Ralph Lauren’s lawyers that led his site’s administrator to remove the image. Still, other blogs picked it up, posting the picture worldwide and adding the expected snark and derision. Ultimately, Ralph Lauren executives admitted to the “poorly imaged photos,” promising improved internal controls. “It was totally a mistake,” says corporate communications senior director Ryan J. Lally. “We rectified it. We did not run from it. It’s a closed issue.”

Not quite. As everyone knows by now, everything lives forever on the Internet. The American Medical Association might well have been thinking of the now-infamous Ralph Lauren image in its groundbreaking call for advertisers to limit body morphing, citing research linking unrealistic body images to mental and eating disorders, especially among youths. The AMA sent a letter to the American Association of Advertising Agencies, urging the industry to consult with health professionals to create appropriate advertising guidelines. Declining to comment directly, 4A’s president and CEO Nancy Hill issued a written statement, referring to the association’s history of supporting responsible advertising, specifically mentioning the Ad Council’s work with Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative targeting childhood obesity.

But while fighting fat may be popular, combatting digitally enforced dieting seems too hot to handle. Agencies such as Gotham and McCann-Erickson, which were named in recent retouched-ad bans in the U.K., would not comment. “That’s pathetic,” says Tim Piper, the filmmaker and former Ogilvy Toronto writer/director who co-created the award-winning Dove Evolution time-lapse spot exposing how Photoshop works. “People in the industry don’t want to hear that it’s bad, but they know it is.”

The bottom line is that airbrushed images can sell products, according to Karen Grant, senior global beauty analyst at the research firm NPD. She notes that highly polished cosmetics ads may be driving growth in new categories of makeup and skin care products that claim to improve skin tone, texture, spots and radiance—all surface facial features buffed by standard retouching. “Yes, I think there’s a correlation,” she says. “Is there hard data to prove it? Absolutely not.”

But the soft evidence is compelling. Ten to 15 years ago, beauty products did not promise a flawless finish, and women were not as conscious of having their skin glow or radiate. “The consumer doesn’t know this is a Photoshop look,” says Grant. “They look in a magazine and say, ‘That’s beautiful—I want to look like that.’”
With women buying makeup to attain that Photoshop finish, public attitudes are nuanced, if not ambivalent. For example, a grassroots petition allied with the National Eating Disorders Association calling for federal retouching labeling laws has so far collected only 2,225 signatures.

“We are surprised that we have not seen more support,” says Seth Matlins, a former marketing agent at Creative Artists Agency who launched a truth-in-airbrushing push along with a positive-message apparel company and a magazine, Off Our Chests.

The fact is, consumers are now even airbrushing at home, as confirmed by a Glamour survey in which 60 percent of 1,000 women polled had no problem with retouching personal photos that might appear on Facebook or online dating sites. “It’s not just a media practice anymore,” says Glamour executive editor Wendy Naugle. “Women are now doing this, and men too.”

In results that surprised Glamour editors, 75 percent of women said they did not mind magazines and advertisers erasing minor blemishes, deleting stray hairs and smoothing wrinkles in clothing. But women did draw the line at body morphing, with only 22 percent approving the digitally slimming away of even five pounds.

The issue cuts close to home for Glamour, seeing as the Photoshop Disasters blog accused the magazine of erasing actress Kristen Stewart’s arm on its cover. Absolutely denying that happened, Glamour editors pointed to its history of publishing diverse images, including news-making photos of plus-size model Lizzie Miller showing her unretouched belly.

With so many magazines facing criticism for heavy post-production—including Vogue’s dramatically revamped cover shot of Adele and Redbook’s slenderized Faith Hill—Glamour took a stand this past March, promising to be more forceful in controlling retouching, including “asking photographers we hire not to manipulate a woman’s shape in the photos we commission, even if a celebrity or model requests a digital diet (alas, it happens).”

Will celebrities willingly go it natural? How about average folk retouching at home? Or women in real-life? Not likely. “People need a reality check,” says NPD’s Grant. “Everyone wants to look natural, but women recognize that it takes a lot of products to look completely natural.”

 http://www.adweek.com/news/press/lash-stand-140785?page=1

Friday, May 18, 2012

Tyra Banks: At 17 and a Size 4, I ‘Would’ve Been Considered Too Heavy’ to Model Now


Tyra Banks (pictured here in 1997) says her former size 4 figure would be too big for a modeling career today. (Rose Hartman/WireImage) 
Tyra Banks (here in 1997) says a size 4 would be too big for modeling today. (Rose Hartman/WireImage)Current Victoria’s Secret model Chanel Iman, 21, shows off her thin frame at a recent fashion show. (Mike Coppola/FilmMagic) 
Current Victoria’s Secret model Chanel Iman, 21, at a recent fashion show. (Mike Coppola/FilmMagic)

Tyra Banks has created a multi-million-dollar empire with her own production company, her hit reality series "America's Next Top Model," her own syndicated daytime talk show that had a five year run, and a book franchise. But none of it would have ever happened had the 5' 10" beauty not landed her first modeling contract as a teenager more than 20 years ago.


Had the timing been different, however, Banks now says wouldn't have been able to become a model in the first place. Why? In an "open letter to models" published in The Daily Beast on Tuesday, the 38-year-old says the size 4 figure she flaunted when she first kicked off her career wouldn't have flown in today's fashion industry. "The truth is that if I was just starting to model at age 17 in 2012, I could not have had the career that I did. I would've been considered too heavy," Banks writes. "In my time, the average model's size was a four or six. Today you are expected to be a size zero. When I started out, I didn't know such a size even existed."


In fact, she reveals she began dealing with rejection midway through her modeling career as her body began to change. "In my early 20s I was a size four. But then I started to get curvy. My agency gave my mom a list of designers that didn't want to book me in their fashion shows anymore," Banks shares. "In order to continue working, I would've had to fight Mother Nature and get used to depriving myself of nutrition."

The real goal of the letter, however, was to "celebrate" Vogue's recent decision to ban models who "appear to have an eating disorder" from all 19 of its editions worldwide. "When I started modeling, I used to see models who seemed unhealthy backstage at fashion shows. They appeared to be abusing their bodies to maintain a certain weight," Banks continues in the letter. "These girls were booked over and over again for countless fashion shows and photo shoots. I'm sure many of you today have witnessed this, or even live it. Now, real progress is finally on the horizon. Vogue is stepping up, doing the right thing, and protecting that girl. Perhaps that girl is you!"

The former Victoria's Secret model isn't alone in her fight to get the industry to focus on featuring healthy bodies rather than those with eating disorders.

Prior to this year's New York Fashion Week in February, designer and president of the Council of Fashion Designers of America, Diane von Furstenberg, sent out guidelines to participating designers on how to best handle suspicions that a model is suffering from an eating disorder, and required them to provide models with healthy meals and snacks backstage. Around the same time, Israeli lawmakers essentially banned skinny models from catwalks, ads, and billboards, passing legislation that says that modeling jobs cannot be given to anyone with a body mass index under 18.5.

Still, some models believe that it's not the industry that's to blame. "I never suffered this problem because I had a very strong family base," supermodel Gisele Bundchen told Brazilian newspaper Globo in 2007. "The parents are responsible, not fashion."

But Banks believes that Vogue's decision is a very fashionable step in the right direction … and she knows just how to mark the occasion, writing: "This calls for a toast over some barbecue and burgers!"
Well, Tyra, you might have to make it grilled chicken over greens to get any actual models to join you.

 http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=8147547974857127565

Friday, May 11, 2012

‘Private Practice’ Star Kate Walsh Talks Aging in Hollywood

Jason Merritt/Getty Images 
Jason Merritt/Getty Images 

Most celebs (and regular folks for that matter) aren't exactly thrilled about getting older, but "Private Practice" star Kate Walsh, who will turn 45 on October 13, doesn't seem to have any qualms about the aging process. Back in March, the stunning redhead dared to bare all on the cover of Shape magazine.

"I was a little nervous, but that was partly why I did it," Walsh told omg! of her nude photo shoot. "I thought it would be a little terrifying and fun."

This confidence is something she says comes with age. "I have a perspective [now, that] I didn't have when I was in my 20s and 30s. In my 20s, there was this natural arc … you're trying to get somewhere and striving to achieve certain career goals or certain family goals. "

Clearly, the focus and tenacity she had in her 20s is what led to her television success as the leading lady on Shonda Rhimes' "Grey's Anatomy" spin-off, "Private Practice," where Walsh portrays Dr. Addison Montgomery, a divorced doctor living in Los Angeles.

Like her character, who has learned some of life's greatest lessons later in life, Walsh adds, "With age comes wisdom. You just get a little more experience, which gives you a bigger perspective. For me [in my 30s], I was fortunate enough to get what I wanted. I was able to arrive a little and really enjoy it, and live each moment."

ABC/KAREN NEALABC/KAREN NEAL

These days, the actress certainly has plenty to enjoy. With the success of her perfume line "Boyfriend" and her follow-up fragrance, "Billionaire Boyfriend," Walsh says she plans to focus more on keeping her life "as balanced as possible" as she approaches her 45th birthday. Part of keeping that balance means no longer dating the types of guys she was initially attracted to in her youth. "When I was young, there was probably a little more attraction to danger and excitement." Now Walsh, who was married for 15 months to movie executive Alex Young, is looking for someone with a sense of humor like Ricky Gervais, and claims to have a major talent crush on Jeremy Renner.

Dating aside, Kate is embracing not only the mental progression of aging, but also the physical, and doesn't seem remotely fazed about adding inevitable wrinkles to her porcelain skin. "It is certainly not misguiding to age and get wrinkles — that's life," she shrugs. "I think there is a certain point, for me at least, to accept that and really relish in the change and to try and really embrace it, and all the growth that comes with it." Still, she can understand why some celebs want to try to defy age in Hollywood. "There are lots of people who've had work done that look fabulous. I mean, Jane Fonda looks amazing and awesome. I think for everybody — to each their own."

But don't expect Walsh to go under the knife anytime soon. Instead, she hopes to age gracefully and says, growing up, she admired women like her grandmother. "It was a huge, important piece of my life and my development to be able to see an older person be older and have my grandmother, with all of her wisdom, looking different than I did."
......
Since Walsh isn't quite ready to join AARP just yet, she's keeping herself busy! During "The Practice's" hiatus, the actress plans to work with Oceana (an organization focused on ocean conservation, protecting marine ecosystems and endangered species), travel to South America, and recently signed on as a spokesperson for the allergy treatment medication Zyrtec, since Walsh herself suffers from allergies. Last week, she sat down with Zyrtec users to share her beauty tips during allergy season and told omg! her biggest secret is sleep. "Sleep is a good drug! It just makes me feel really good and I think it is underestimated in our culture."
With her hectic schedule, one has to wonder how much sleep Kate is really getting.

 http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/aline/private-practice-star-kate-walsh-talks-aging-hollywood-222727830.html?_esi=1#more-6748

Friday, May 4, 2012

Cover girls under 16 are out. So says Vogue, fashion's longtime dictator

Vogue Bans Underage Models, Calls for Healthy Fashion Reform. At Last.

(Courtesy of ABC News)Cover girls under 16 are out. So says Vogue, fashion's longtime dictator.

In a statement released Thursday morning, publisher Conde Nast announced the magazine's worldwide ban of the use of models 15 and younger in their pages.

"Vogue believes that good health is beautiful. Vogue Editors around the world want the magazines to reflect their commitment to the health of the models who appear on the pages and the well-being of their readers," said Conde Nast International Chairman Jonathan Newhouse in the press release.


The accountability movement has been brewing since the deaths of malnourished models and shrinking ages of cover girls. Last season, the Council of Fashion Designers of America publicly urged runway designers not to hire those younger than 16. And this past February, the Model's Alliance, the first union designed to protect the rights of fashion models was launched.

Sara Ziff, founder of the Model's Alliance welcomed Vogue's announcement. "Most editions of Vogue regularly hire models who are minors," Ziff told Yahoo! Shine, "so for Vogue to commit to no longer using models under the age of 16 marks an evolution in the industry."

Both Ziff and Vogue acknowledge underage models are only part of the industry's problem. Included in the magazine's manifesto is a pledge to "not knowingly" employ those "who appear to have an eating disorder." Presumably that includes models over 16 as well. The magazine's editors also devised a plan to influence the industry at large.

Their strategy includes mentoring programs for younger models, and better backstage conditions for runway models, specifically more healthy food options and a "respect for privacy." Editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and her staff also encourages casting agents to "not to keep models unreasonably late" and ask "designers to consider the consequences of unrealistically small sample sizes of their clothing, which limits the range of women who can be photographed in their clothes."

This is a major breakthrough for an industry long accused of setting unrealistic beauty ideals and doing nothing about it. Vogue's move is worth all the praise it's getting. But any reasonable skeptic has to ask, why now?

It's been a difficult year for the magazine, particularly for its international arms. In August, French Vogue was under fire for a sexually charged spread featuring a 10-year-old girl. Racially insensitive fashion editorials in Italian and Japanese editions only added to a chorus of criticism.

In a world where trends are now dictated by Twitter, and where Wintour's fiercest competitor is a teenage feminist named Tavi, the shroud Vogue privilege is no more. Young women outside of the glossy fashion bubble have the megaphone and they're as passionate about causes as they are about color-blocking.

This week's proof: 14-year-old Julia Bluhm. After launching a petition asking Seventeen magazine to ban retouching, Bluhm moved the protest to the magazine's offices and to the press. "Girls shouldn't compare themselves to pictures in magazines," she told Yahoo! Shine. "They're fake."

But not everyone is as savvy as Bluhm. For years, fashion magazines have packaged adult femininity with the help of barely pubescent models. Until recently, most people didn't notice. According to Model Alliance, over 54 percent of working models start working between the ages of 13 and 16.

Fashionista's Haley Phelan sees Vogue's healthy model promise as a potential game changer. "It should make a big impact on the kind of models and editorials we see in the magazines," writes the industry insider. But she worries the language in their statement, peppered with non-binding legal terms, is "non-committal."

Ziff too is cautiously optimistic saying she "hopes that Vogue will honor its commitment." With so much on the line, and so many people watching, it better.

Vogue bans too-skinny models from its pages

Vogue bans too-skinny models from its pages

NEW YORK (AP) — Vogue magazine, perhaps the world's top arbiter of style, is making a statement about its own models: Too young and too thin is no longer in.

The 19 editors of Vogue magazines around the world made a pact to project the image of healthy models, according to a Conde Nast International announcement Thursday.

They agreed to "not knowingly work with models under the age of 16 or who appear to have an eating disorder," and said they will ask casting directors to check IDs at photo shoots and fashion shows and for ad campaigns.

The move is an important one for the fashion world, said former model Sara Ziff, who was discovered at 14 and has since founded The Model Alliance, dedicated to improving the working conditions of models and persuading the industry to take better care of its young.

"Most editions of Vogue regularly hire models who are minors, so for Vogue to commit to no longer using models under the age of 16 marks an evolution in the industry," she said. "We hope other magazines and fashion brands will follow Vogue's impressive lead."

American, French, Chinese and British editions of the fashion glossies are among those that will start following the new guidelines with their June issues; the Japanese edition will begin with its July book.

"Vogue believes that good health is beautiful. Vogue Editors around the world want the magazines to reflect their commitment to the health of the models who appear on the pages and the well-being of their readers," said Conde Nast International Chairman Jonathan Newhouse in a statement.

Models' health — and especially their weight — has been a lightning rod the past few years, especially after the death of two models from apparent complications from eating disorders in 2006-07, but the focus, until now, has been on runway fashion shows.

The Council of Fashion Designers of America adopted a voluntary initiative in 2007, which emphasizes age minimums and healthy working environments during New York Fashion Week, and London Fashion Week designers sign a contract with the British Fashion Council to use models who are at least 16.

The primary fashion organizations in Italy and Spain banned catwalk models who fall below a certain Body Mass Index level, and earlier this year, Israel's government passed an anti-skinny-model law.

Still, there is persistent criticism that the fashion world creates a largely unattainable and unhealthy standard that particularly affects impressionable young girls.

"We know that there is an impact for young girls — and boys, by the way — of what is put in front of them in terms of media," said Elissa J. Brown, professor of psychology at St. John University and founder of The Partners Program, a specialized therapy program for children and adolescents.

A change in what they see on the pages of prestigious fashion magazines could change the image of what they would strive for, she said.

It wouldn't hurt for parents to take a look at healthier looking models, too, she added. "I'm a mother and I hear other mothers talk about the parts of their bodies they don't like in front of their daughters instead of talking about health. If the message becomes about health, it could have a tremendous impact."

The Vogue guidelines are largely similar to the CFDA's — no surprise since U.S. editor-in-chief Anna Wintour was instrumental in crafting them.

"CFDA is pleased to see all the Vogue magazines unite in support of model health," CFDA CEO Steven Kolb said. "This increased level of support makes the message of 'Health is Beauty' even stronger."

Conde Nast, in its announcement, recognized that fashion models serve as role models for "many women," and the publisher wants to ensure that the models in its pages "are well cared for and educated in ways that will encourage and help them to take care of themselves, addressing as many of the pressing issues relating to ill-health in the industry as can realistically be tackled."

Ziff said the age restriction is important for other reasons, too.

"The use of underaged models is linked to financial exploitation, eating disorders, interrupted schooling, and contributes to models' overall lack of empowerment in the workplace," she said. "We simply believe that 14 is too young to be working in this very grown-up industry, and we're glad that Condé Nast International is making this commitment.
In addition to agreeing not to knowingly work with models under 16 or with eating disorders, the Vogue pact says the magazines will help "structure mentoring programs" for younger models and raise awareness of the problem of model health. The magazines said they would encourage healthy working conditions backstage and encourage designers "to consider the consequences of unrealistically small sample sizes of their clothing, which limits the range of women who can be photographed in their clothes, and encourages the use of extremely thin models."

Conde Nast publishes other magazines, including Glamour and Allure, but a spokeswoman said there are no current plans for these guidelines to be adopted across the company.

Runway model Coco Rocha applauded the changes.

"I've long been a vocal supporter of setting reasonable standards in the modeling industry," she said in an email. "Not every model appears in Vogue, but every model and every magazine looks up to them as the standard (bearer). I can only imagine this will be a solid step in a direction that will benefit models for generations to come. "
___
Follow the latest fashion news on Twitter at http://twitter.com/AP_Fashion
There was an error in this gadget