Have you noticed how horrible the photoshopping has been on the Lululemon website? Many of you have brought up certain web photos in the comments and they’ve been pretty bad (in regards to photoshop specifically) but this latest photo takes the cake for worst photoshop hack job ever. I find the butt cheek eliminating and thigh gap photoshops the most offensive, and in this photo the skin pigment smoothing and lightening. This photo is just weird. I wonder why they are allowing such unprofessional photography on their website. Maybe they’ve ‘trimmed the fat’ in one too many departments lately. I think we can all agree that this model is stunning and did not need photoshopping. 

Energy Bra




  1. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 12:38 am

    It's like she has knees for elbows. I want to grab Lululemon by the shoulders and shake some sense into them. SHEESH!

  2. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 12:41 am

    So weird and bizarre- almost like they uploaded the wrong images!

  3. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 12:47 am

    This lady is my favourite lulu model… how could they do this to her? She is a babe and doesn't need any fixing!

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 1:05 am

      I really like her too!

  4. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 1:06 am

    Omg, she looks like she has a serious skin disease. Somebody really effed up at LLL

  5. January 4, 2017 / 1:15 am

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with those pictures on my computer!

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 5:20 am

      Same here.

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 11:13 pm


  6. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 1:26 am

    I don't see these blemished edits on my computer either.

  7. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 1:48 am

    It seems like they shifted a layer before saving it or turned on an unblurred layer by accident. Either way, this is horrible.

  8. January 4, 2017 / 2:07 am

    It looks awful I wondered why their 'thigh gap' looked like that. They've made her arms small too. No butt is a good look? Very unprofessional.

  9. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 2:09 am

    Someone clearly f-ed up and chose the wrong photos. Was this from the USA site? I see this Energy Bra is gone from under "What's New" but it is under the regular stock of Energy Bras (Canada it's under "What's New" and regular search under Sports Bras). The images look fine but you can actually still see some retouching. On the Canadian site you can also see some retouching (I'm on a Mac).

    No doubt they do it just like other brands and it is horrible of them. (She is a stunning model.) Women already have it hard enough as to what we are expected to live up to or look like.

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 2:41 am

      Something definitely weird going on because under the Canadian page, the botched photo is the main photo. You can tell by the bra line and the lips as compared to the above first photo. But when you go into the item you don't see obvious photo shopping but there are signs of it. Everything looks mostly "normal"

  10. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 6:02 pm

    I see some weird skin coloring variations. But, while a stunning model, she is the one with the odd shaped legs that are in so many of the photos. I don't think her legs are the result of any type of photoshopping. It's like her bone structure in her legs goes outward instead of straight down. Almost like being bow-legged, but starting at the hips instead of lower down.

  11. Anonymous
    January 4, 2017 / 6:44 pm

    LLL, if you need to photoshop this model then you shouldn't have hired her in the first place. Stopping touching her!

  12. January 4, 2017 / 10:56 pm

    Where did you get that photo from? I looked on the website and there is nothing wrong with the photo. It looks like you are the one who photoshopped it.

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 11:09 pm

      Surely you jest.

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 11:32 pm

      Wow. You're kidding. Right??? It's also on the Canadian mobile site – the lead picture. Brutal photoshopping, and brutal accusation anon@2:56.

    • Anonymous
      January 4, 2017 / 11:46 pm

      @2:56 LOL you are so slow

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 12:14 am

      @ Anonymous 3:46 PM – That is really offensive.

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 1:25 am

      @ anon 3:46 PM – you are so rude (seeing as we all have a right to say what we want, as you very clearly did in your comment… although sometimes it's totally uncalled for, as in this case… both yours and mine haha, but just saying…)

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 7:09 am

      I agree with Anon 5:25 hahha. We do have a right to say what we want! And this is just a clothing blog, not your Facebook wall! Lol

    • Lulumum
      January 4, 2017 / 11:31 pm

      yah that's the likeliest scenario vs. maybe they removed the image off their site after many people posted it on their Facebook page alerting them to the issue.

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 3:43 pm

      sorry but the comment at 11:09 PM is just straight up immature.

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 4:30 pm

      Sorry, meant 3:46's comment, not 11:09's comment! anyway, over and out, haha! I shouldn't be adding any fuel to the fire, sorry LLM.

  13. January 4, 2017 / 11:06 pm

    It's on the us mobile site😌

  14. Anonymous
    January 5, 2017 / 1:14 am

    I'm guessing someone must have messed up and put the wrong photos up originally then removed once they realised and replaced with the ones that were intended to go up to begin with. (I didn't see this, just going by what I've seen and read in this blog post) I don't know why everyone is so shocked that Lululemon uses photoshop – pretty sure this is the norm these days (unfortunately). However it is shocking (or not, they have made all kinds of upload/website mistakes before this) that whoever they have hired to put up the photos messed up.

  15. Anonymous
    January 5, 2017 / 5:27 am

    As far as her legs go, why doesn't she stand with her feet closer together? Then her legs wouldn't look so far apart. Seriously, look at how far apart her feet are & compare w all the other models feet. She is doing this herself for whatever reason

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 1:41 pm

      Standing with your feet further apart is one of tricks used in the "after" portion of those scammy "before/after" photos. It enhances the appearance of slimmer thighs. Although I can't see why they'd use that stance in lulu stock photography …? Increasing the 'beloved' thigh gap? 😛

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 1:48 pm

      As for "why doesn't she stand with her feet closer together?" – probably because she's posing how the photographer or the person in charge of the photo shoot is telling her to! She is NOT "doing this herself"! Since when do models have control of photo shoots?!

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 3:58 pm

      In most of the straight on photos the models are standing with their feet lined up under where their hip bones would be – this is normal alignment for standing up straight, and in these straight on photos there is no "posing" other than standing perfectly straight. This particular model looks to have wider set hip bones so her stance and foot placement is going to be wider than the models with narrower hip bone width. I really like this model actually and have a similar kind of lower body with wider hip bones and slightly bowed out legs. Also, I love the photos showing straight on front and back shots since they give the best overall view of the clothing (as someone who only ever shops online this is extremely important).

    • Anonymous
      January 5, 2017 / 4:00 pm

      she is the only one standing like this. maybe the appearance is stronger because of the shape of her legs.
      I think they should you hire someone else to showcase leggings. it's distracting to see how bow legged she is (it looks very masculine, like you have the legs of a male person modeling leggings for women).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.