How many times have you heard that models and celebrities really aren't as perfect as they look on the covers of magazines? It's a message that's been drilled into my head over and over, and yet I still look at magazines and wonder how on earth anyone looks that flawless. Even with excellent makeup and flattering lighting, most photos are retouched in Photoshop to create an unattainable level of perfection.
Hearing that is one thing, but seeing it is another. Jezebel offered $10,000 to anyone who would come forward with a cover photo before it had been retouched. And finally, someone has. The July cover of Redbook features Faith Hill. She looks very pretty and fresh, right? She did before being Photoshopped, too, yet she's been heavily retouched. To see the "before" picture, read more
So, here's Faith Hill, before Photoshop.
Honestly? I thought she looked pretty good before the retouching. She looks healthy, happy, and is showing a few smile lines, too. I understand why magazines might want to even out her skin tone and balance the cover, but this retouching is pretty heavy (the designer even added an arm, eliminated the bend of her elbow, and made her back thinner).
I want to know what you think about retouching. Does it bother you, or do you not mind? Do you think magazines do too much of it? (And how long do you think it will be before the identity of Jezebel's anonymous photo-supplier is found out?!) Source
More & More
Energie
Wallis
As a photographer and someone who heavily studied and practiced retouching in school, I have come to think of it as an art form. It takes an incredible amount of skill to retouch as you see above and while some photo-retouchers (and amateurs playing around in Kodak photo altering programs) are a bit heavy handed, the one above is an example of good retouching in my opinion- without seeing the "before" photo, besides assuming there was some retouching on colors, skin etc... it would be hard to guess "her back has been thinned" or an arm was added for aesthetics. Of course the colors are bright and glossy but so goes with many magazine covers. No it doesn't bother me because I know that behind all of the paintbrush and clone implimented tools is someone like you or I.
1she looked nice before but i can see why they would re-touch her. the entertainment industry wants all their women to look not a day over 25.
2i can see how it is an art form but it is sending out an unhealthy image to the public x
3She looked beautiful before, so I don't see the reason for all that photoshopping. It's sending out that message that noone is good enough as they are.
4Entertainment Weekly has some of the worst re-touchers I have ever seen. Half of their covers wind up looking like they photographed wax figures of the actual people, and they made Daniel Radcliffe look like he'd been re-created as a cyborg by the people who did "I, Robot."
Look through their cover archive to see what I mean:
5http://www.ew.com/ew/inside/archive/0,,,00.html
i wonder what the celebs think when they see themselves all touched up
6Wow! I agree she looked healthy enough before that she really didn't need the airbrush. This retouch is not so bad. Normally I don't mind if it's not so obvious.
7I cannot understand why it's "art" ---there's no visual element that can categorized "retouching" as "art". It's only "altering" the image originally created.
8But there's nothing new about this news. Retouching photos are evrywhere and are as vicious as everyone might think. That's why we shouldn't really believe everything we see in magazines---perfect toned bodies, flawless skin, etc.
bella, now that you pointed out the elbow being straightened, i can't help but think the airbrushed version looks freaky.
9I think the whole industry should prevent "touch-us" or "alterations" or whatever for 1 year, and see how sales do. If sales stay the same or go up, they shouldn't (and in that case wouldn't want to) go back to allowing touch-ups/etc..
10I think CestLaVie has a legitimate point about retouching being a kind of art form. Having worked in the branding and film industries, you come across people who can really create amazing images - many times out of nothing.
I would also like to add that Photoshop is just the most recent medium of retouching. Before that, it was lighting, film, f-stops, the dark room, make up - Hollywood has been creating "false" images for a very very long time. And before that, portrait painters created images of royalty and wealthy powerful people that favored the subject or enhanced their attractiveness.
Maybe the real question is why are we so gullible to believe what we see knowing what we know about advertising, celebrity and fashion?
11She looks fine before the touch up. Why?
12I guess it is art, but photoshopping and retouching makes everyday people want to look like that, and even makes some of them want surgery or go crazy to look like that. But no one really looks like that ever!
13My thoughts: millions of women are living with depression, eating disorders, addictions, etc. because of this type of thing. It's not just that we're told that this is what is beautiful, but our spouses are being told that it's the standard as well. How can any REAL woman measure up to this? I certainly can't get Photoshopped all day everyday and I can't afford the cosmetic surgery options either!
14wow!
15I understand people looking at retouching as an art form, but the problem arises when people (young and not so young girls) don't know a photo has been retouched and look at a picture thinking - "how come I can't this little bit of back fat to go away like faith hill", or "I wish I didn't have so many freckles on my arm..." or "I hope I age like Faith Hill, she doesn't have any laugh lines..." We've just smoothed , filled in, evened out some of what Faith is.
We don't more venues pushing the unrealistic idea that beauty means perfection.
16And this is how the society measures beauty by photoshopping celebrities. No wonder plastic surgery has gone up. Can't we all just embrace our natural beauty?
17Retouching may be an art...but she is a person. Think about how she feels somebody telling her she needs to be retouched to be beutiful. What lesson are we sending to girls my age?
18i agree with black jade...if no one had showed me the before i never would have known it was retouched to that extent, or at all.
19I just got the new issue of Shape magazine looked at the cover and thought "what a beautiful Latina model". Then I looked at the name on the cover and it turned out to be Hillary Duff!!! That is ridiculous! When a person is not recognizable anymore I say it's too much. If there was a women's magazine where they did not do any photoshop, I would be the first to subscribe to it.
20The bend in her arm looks odd in both, but the retouched one it's WAY to low down. I can see why they retouched it, and I can understand. I'm learning a lot about retouching, it takes time, patience, and skill. It's hard and I actually really admire people who can do it so well. I'm not fully against it because I know sometimes those good days just don't come when the cameras are shooting. However I have seen some crazy extreme touch up jobs that are just ridiculous and very apparent. It especially annoys me when they take celebs who are already thin and make them look even more unhumanly thin. It sends a bad message to young girls.
21I think it sends an unhealthy message to women that they should strive to be like this. I mean there isn't one person that hasn't looked at a magazine and thought I wish I had this like her or that like him but now all of the people we see on covers look the same. It's becomming the norm that people don't seem to age anymore. So many stars are falling victim to plastic surgery horrors, most of them look completely ridiculous. I think it would be good to see more people that look like regular people instead of the perfect size 2 or 4 women that have no imperfections.
22Personally, I think it's terrible that anyone has to touch-up a photograph that was fine to begin with. The fact that they took the slight bags under her eyes out, made her arm thinner, and took away the bit of skin on her that was 'puffy' from the fit of the dress is hideous!
The constant media bombardment of all these actresses and models who are in perfect physical shape and proportion, and always appear gorgeous has done tremendous damage to the female psyche. Young girls are literally starving themselves to live up to some level of beauty that doesn't exist. And celebrities have the benefit of the make-up artists, the hair stylist, the personal trainers, nannies (so they can do all these things), custom fit clothing, and thousands of dollars in skin care products.
I know photos are touched-up in advertising to sell a product, but it shouldn't go to such an extreme to make the already beautiful people to appear perfect. But in the case of a magazine cover, it's not necessary that they do it to such an extent. People would have bought the magazine with either picture on the cover!
23p.s. It's kinda interesting that this issue of Redbook is a topic of discussion... because I'm actually in this one! It's the same pic I have as my icon!
She's a natural beauty... they should have done the cover without the photoshop... Retouching gives the readers of beauty/celebrity magazines an image of perfection that is completely false... I can appreciate a beautiful photograph, but it would be great to see our society see the beauty that is naturally in these performers, models, etc. even with their slight wrinkles, back "fat", and badly angled arms. If such high emphasis was not placed on getting rid of these "flaws" I bet we would not even notice them.
24Yes, photo editing is an art, but this is just silly. I agree with you scorpgirl11, she is a natural beauty and the pose they put her in is awful. It's a bang up job.
25Yeah seriously, her elbow looks CREEPY in the re-touched pic! Photo editing definitely takes some talent, but jeezus! How are "real women" supposed to feel about themselves when all these celebs are being altered in photographs? Just opening up the door to a world of dismorphic body image disorder!
26i understand the whole having something that loks good and the froint cover in order to attract, i jsut think that its sad that the perception of what looks good is a painted picture nota real person with flaws and all...what retouching does is in essence make everyone look the same..all perfectly flawless, i think she looks good in the before picture-she looks like shes lived not like shes been molded out of clay. i wonder how celebrities/models feel when they see a picture of themselves tahts been retouched and soemthings missing, i recall reading a article when an actress said she was disturddbed that her freckels shed had all her life werent there.
27faith hill is naturally gorgeous, but i honestly don't think it's that big of a deal. the fascination with celebrities is all about escapism - they embody the "perfect" images that people (some, not all - i'm making a generalization) wish they could be.
personally, i read fashion mags, etc. to escape from the "real world" and i enjoy looking at those perfect, glossy images of my favorite celebs and models. although it's occasionally fun to see images of celebs all scruffy and au natural, when i open my latest issue of instyle, vogue, or any of the other mags, i'd like to see 'em all done up!
this is nothing against anyone else, just my own personal opinion.
28I understand WHY she was retouched- her age showed in her smile and eyes and yes, her back bulged out ever so slightly. HOWEVER, in her original photo, she actually looked like she was smiling. You could see it in her eyes. The retouched photo makes her look frozen and emotionless. I guess that's the point, though. Right?
29Frankly I like the untouched picture the best.
30I did a report last year for class on photoshopping in ads and how it can make girls feel even worse about themselves.. (I wish I would have been able to find a good before/after picture like this back then). It's just really sad that in real life models and celebrities don't look like the "models" in magaines.
31wow i think she looks better before the touch-up!
32I can understand correcting a cover photo that has a distracting shadow, a big ugly mole or pimple, or even severe under-eye circles, but most of these magazines overdo it! There are natural shadows and creases when a person smiles that even 20 year olds have! They are completely airbrushed away in these magazine covers. I saw a picture of Dolly Parton on a cover once, not a line or shadow on her face! She's 60 years old! She didn't look real.
33Airbrushing as a skill? No problem.
Presenting heavily airbrushed images to women and girls and saying "Buy these products and you can look just like her!". Huge problem. I'm tired of perfectly lovely women thinking they're just not quite good enough because they don't live up to the airbrushed ideal. Everyone has pores, people!
34She looked good before!
35They also made her arm a lot thinner, and "flattened" out her shoulders so it makes her neck look longer...
36I can see how "airbrushing" is an art form, but in too many cases photos are overdone, which is disappointing. I think many women would relate a lot better to a magazine with a less perfect-looking woman on the cover...we all have our little flaws! It would be nice if we could all have a chance to realize that celebrities and models have flaws too!
I'm sure the women being photoshopped like it. And I wouldn't mind being on a mag cover if I could look like that.
Yes, it does go too far nowadays (when my husband can tell, something is up). Are these covers supposed to be "art" or reporting?
37Does anyone else think she looks a little like Jessica Simpson in the re-re-retouched photo? She looked beautiful before. I'm a little disappointed in Redbook, since they aren't a magazine that is specifically geared towards a young population.
And her arm!!!! I only noticed it cause it was mentioned but thats kinda scary looking.
38I think she looked beautiful before the touch up photo! I think the touch up makes her look too pale looking.
39Her arm looks too long in the retouched version! Its funny how I only notices after I saw the original.
40The shot they chose for the cover is terrible. I don't know why any decent photographer would have even submitted it. But whatever, what BOTHERS me is that they retouched her already very fit arm to be thinner and more linear. WTF? It makes me think they really ARE trying to make women feel inadequate.
41She looked good before.There was no reason to retouch her.
42she looks like jessica simpson after all the retouching i think..magazine retouchers make everyone look the same, what's the fun in that? she looks beautiful in the original pic, i think! I understand a little cleaning up, but this is overkill.
43I don't like the retouching. She looks way better (and more natural) in the before shot.
44Retouching has made human beings into cartoon characters but if they ever stopped doing it I think their media empires would fall in on themselves. Why? Because we'd start to realize that these celebrities don't look much better than us most of the time. LOL
45We don't need any more unrealistic beauty standards. Whatever happened to the natural beauty? I've come to believe that talent and genetics counts for nothing. People who can't act make a ton of money because they're attractive. People who can't sing are altered in the studio and chosen because they're attractive. And it isn't even people who are naturally attractive, but people who are plastic and airbrushed.
Money can and does buy fame.
46Retouching may be an art form ... and I'll admit it takes a certain amount of talent to do a good job ... but just because you CAN do it doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD do it. We're coming to realize that society has an unhealthy view on the way a person LOOKS instead of who they are and retouching only perpetuates that. A normal person cannot HOPE to acheive the same looks naturally (and healthily, I might add) yet millions spend money on either plastic surgery or dietary aids ... or worse yet ... have eating disorders to attempt to come close to the unhealthy image being portrayed by celebrities and the media.
47I think retouching actually makes someone "untouchable" - isn't that the whole point of having celebrities on magazine covers? To glorify and convey, partly, everything that's "unattainable" about them and their lives to us "normal" people? In her "before" photo, Faith looks as gorgeous as ever, but her skin *isn't* completely flawless and doll-like but she looks REAL, like she could step out of that photograph at any time and that' what she'd actually look like in person. The "after" photo in a sense, isn't real - and those little subtleties (that's why retouching is an "art", because there are so many subtleties that an untrained eye doesn't notice) that are no erased make her look fake.
48I would pay good money to have all my picture's photo-shopped!
But it seems that Redbook got into alot of trouble for their need to retouch cover photo's. I think it was a cover with Julia Roberts that they took 3 different pictures of her from over a 2 year period and made into some weird looking franken-picture. She was not happy about it when it happen.
Faith is looking her age... and they really did smooth out her face... alot.
49Retouching makes me feel ugly. There're flawless faces, thin bodies, perfect smooth skins on all of the magazine covers. But this is not real life.
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.