really? this naturally beautiful woman is too fat and ugly to put on a magazine cover as is??!


[Edited 7/20/07 9:46am]

She looked fine in the top one.



What software do these guys use?

Imago said:

True. I love that first pic.

Nice avatar, btw. Sexay.

Imago said:

photoshop, i presume.

i agree. she looks great in the real pic. slimming her arm down and narrowing her head considerably were the changes that really made me think this is crazy.


.
[Edited 7/20/07 9:58am]

Imago said:

Photoshop.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...cFlxSlOKNI

Wtf did they do to her arm?

JustErin said:

slimmed it to non-human proportions and emoved the elbow curves for some reason.

JustErin said:

And the part where her back and dress meet.

This is bullshit to me, Faith Hill is too fat as is?

And right next to her is an article on the "New Skinny Pills" that actually work. Pfft!

rushing07 said:

I've seen that one before and never noticed it was Photoshop

Some of the other links are fascinating.

Wow. Some of these people were already impossibly good looking.



And Faith hill's photoshopped arm is kind of gross.

you might expect this from cosmo or something but redbook?
if i was faith i would be insulted that they felt they had to
"fix" her before allowing her image on the damn cover.

I think the spots on her left arm are so cute.. Why take 'em off..

And why did they add an arm in the backround and remove the one on her lap? WTF?

Mushanga said:

part of the effort to super-skinnify her.

Imago said:

I think Faith is amazingly beautiful but I'm usually not outraged when I see a heavily photoshopped pic.

Artists have been beauifying thier models since forever.
Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas.

PS But yeah, that hand is fucked up.
[Edited 7/20/07 10:37am]

they shoulda photoshopped in a better dress.

This is just further proof to me that I married the most beautiful woman in the world. She does not need to be photoshopped!

I've always felt that - taking nothing away from pretty women in entertainment - there are plenty of women in every city that are just as beautiful as any starlet.

cborgman said:

I hadn't quite realized that. Ugggh!

madartista said:

catty!

madartista said:

Lammastide said:

the weird alien arm is what really gets me... who, aside from those pictures of holocaust victims, even has arms like that!?!? it's so bizarre that people think that is attractive.

cborgman said:

What's disturbing to me is that they do this for a magazine with a female audience. I could understand if this were somg girly mag for guys, but are they seriously trying to communicate to women that this is how an ideal woman looks?

Lammastide said:

of course. you can never be TOO thin, you know.

Lammastide said:

and smushing her head in too... ugh.

evenstar3 said:

ick ick ick.

Yuck. A little airbrushing is maybe understandable, but making a thin woman look anorexic?

I wonder if maybe she was the who wanted to get rid of the "imperfections."

Mushanga said:

Her spots are really cute and the arm thing is weird

madartista said:

Oh lawd.

NDRU said:

the person being photographed has no say and generally will not see the film after it's shot. the first edit comes from the photographer (who does color corrections, removes eyes closed shots and whatever he doesn't want the mag to see that reflects their own technical prowess or lack therof). the next edit comes from whoever the sittings editor was who oversaw the shoot, and is submitted as a 'cover try' in competition with all the other stories being shot from the other editors. celebrity sittings usually get first pickings as they have now replaced the phenomenon we once knew as supermodels. however the final say comes from the chief editor of the publication. and once they declare it, changes are made photoshop wise and the decision is pretty much set in stone...

Well that's every Picture you see these days, you don't really think Prince looks like the pictures we see do you?!

I basically think the media, especially in America can't present reality as it is without buffing it up or polishing it first. It's always been this way to some degree, but it's more obvious now because the technology is better but our senses still innately know what is real and what isn't... however... the line is blurring and sadly, I think a large amount of people accept far too much of what they see in the media as "real" and true to life.



.
[Edited 7/21/07 5:26am]