Verily: A Women’s Magazine with a Strict ‘No Photoshop’ Policy


It turns out that it does exist: a magazine that prides itself on not altering their models’ faces or bodies in Photoshop. Verily is a fashion and lifestyle magazine aimed at women 18 to 35, and even though that is prime demographic territory when it comes to Photoshop use, the whole purpose of the magazine is to at least begin reversing this trend.

According to the Huffington Post, which first took notice of the young magazine last week, there is a strict no-retouching policy in place at Verily. Their mandate:

Whereas other magazines artificially alter images in Photoshop to achieve the so-called ideal body type or leave a maximum of three wrinkles, Verily never alters the body or face structure of the Verily models.


The magazine intends to celebrate real women, whose “crows feet, freckles, or less-than-rock-hard body, are aspects that contribute to [their] beauty and should be celebrated — not shamed, changed or removed,” Verily’s Ashley Crouch told HuffPost.

This no-Photoshop approach goes hand-in-hand with one of the magazine’s taglines: “Less of who you should be, more of who you are.”

To find out more about Verily and their drastically different approach to the modern-day women’s magazine, head over to the magazine’s website by clicking here.

(via Huffington Post)

  • Eugene Chok

    wow look how much effort you put into formulating a way someone can up vote themselves… i never even considered this but clearly you have lol send me a link to your work i would love to see what your clients are ending up with, i assume you just hand over raw files?

  • Eugene Chok

    btw a friend of mine, a wonderful photographer, he is dyslexic and spells many things wrong… doesn’t change how excellent a shooter he is tho

  • lidocaineus

    Please come back when you can discuss what you brought up in the first place, like an adult, instead of trying to constantly distract into pointless tangents.

  • David Cutrano

    OMG…who cares if a magazine alters an image. People need to get off their moral high horses and consider the fact that some of us, in particular those who call ourselves artists, take great pride in the ability to create an image as our minds see it or as another requests it to be depicted.

    Is it wrong for a painter to paint a picture of a forest that’s an abstract or impressionistic because it doesn’t look exactly like the forest if you were to photograph it? This is ART, a means of expression, and I’d encourage some of you who call yourselves artists to start thinking like one and quit buying into this whole “photoshopping is evil” mindset. It’s a tool to use; a means to get creative.

    And please don’t say that these images distort our idea and perception of what real attainable beauty is. It’s so commonplace by now that you can’t possibly think there’s truth to it. I guess it just comes down to being comfortable with who you are.

  • Jason Wright

    I think you completely got the wrong end of the stick here.
    I am saying makeup is FINE. Yes you can make people look better with it, you can make lips look thinner etc.
    The point is photoshop makes them actually thinner/thicker etc. A physical impossibility with makeup.
    Makeup good, Photoshop bad.

  • Rob

    Surely, then, they do not employ make-up artists or hairstylists either, right? We wouldn’t want to display an image that is in any way altering the normal look of the people on the pages.

  • Rob

    I’m also offended that the model in the top image is sporting a dress with vertical lines. This is an obvious visual trick meant to create the illusion of elongation which is not an honest depiction of the model’s “natural” figure.

  • Vin Weathermon

    Basically, they do not hire any woman who is not perfect in skin, hair, body proportion or facial symmetry so they don’t have to do any photoshop. Hooray for women. They just exclude more models than anyone else.