Katy Perry appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone a few months ago, and as is the custom for many pop starlets, she appeared in a sexy pose. However, it appears that her photos were Photoshopped to make her apepar more flawless.

http://www.businessinside...oto-2011-2

I keep wondering how this can constantly become an issue. Every freaking magazine is photoshopping their covers. Even if it's a horse or landscape. Shouldn't everyone know this by now?

There is not much change actually. The lighting shop is pretty normal standard in the industry but other than that very minimal changes.

Unfortunate expression but she is still gorgeous.

Matt Taibbi is the only valid reason to look at RS.

Katy Perry is scrate awful. That is all.

VenusBlingBling said:

I keep wondering how this can constantly become an issue. Every freaking magazine is photoshopping their covers. Even if it's a horse or landscape. Shouldn't everyone know this by now?

thank U!! I mean they sell the programs in every computer store, what do we think they make that program for??? But its BS to think she doesnt have a great body, sorry, but this is why younger kids have bad self images of themselves, Katy has a great body, but some 16 year old home that doesnt feel that they do, hears, OH Katy isnt even hot enough, sorry, but that is why kids today have issues so freaking young.

But i mean, guys, we all know, like the "mens" magazines like SHOW or KING or MAXIM, do you really think these chicks are that perfect? BUT i think what gets lost is when people hear photoshopped people think you took HORRID and made it perfection, sorry, but no program can do that

I'd bang her in both versions

I prefer the original pic, though, she looks more natural & realistic (no pun intended lol)

I can understand the color & lightning change, but the breast "surgery" was just disrespectful, unnecessary and insulting. If I was Katie, I'd be angry and then I'd touch myself...

VenusBlingBling said:

I keep wondering how this can constantly become an issue. Every freaking magazine is photoshopping their covers. Even if it's a horse or landscape. Shouldn't everyone know this by now?

Thank you. I could give a damn.

VenusBlingBling said:

I keep wondering how this can constantly become an issue. Every freaking magazine is photoshopping their covers. Even if it's a horse or landscape. Shouldn't everyone know this by now?

Exactly. They do this to every picture, it's standard procedure and has been for a longgg time - way before people even started noticing and bringing it up.

Both versions show she is still capable of giving Russell Brand a tit wank.

She's not that spectacular anyway so I guess they did what they had to do

nursev said:

She's not that spectacular anyway so I guess they did what they had to do

She's pretty normal. No telephone hat or meat dress, no fever perfume rapper on her arm.

And I'm glad she is not taking the stance that sex sells. She just forgot she was only in her under crackers when the photographer arrived.

BklynBabe said:

Can someone photoshop her voice please?

It's quite telling that she had to strip down to her drawers just to make the cover.

Identity said:

It's quite telling that she had to strip down to her drawers just to make the cover.

Why is it telling? She was butt naked in the "California Whatever That Was" video.

What makes it sad is that they changed the breasts. Such a fucking cliché.

novabrkr said:

What makes it sad is that they changed the breasts. Such a fucking cliché.

All mags do it. Rolling Stone been doing it for a while. All their covers and photos are airbrushed and photoshopped like crazy.

Didn't there used to be a music magazine called Rolling Stone, too?

her "before" hand actually looked un-dead!

NDRU said:

Didn't there used to be a music magazine called Rolling Stone, too?

Yeah it died in the 1990s.

Timmy84 said:

NDRU said:

Didn't there used to be a music magazine called Rolling Stone, too?

Yeah it died in the 1990s.

no, in the late-70s

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah it died in the 1990s.

no, in the late-70s

Thanks for correcting me.

Timmy84 said:

JoeTyler said:

no, in the late-70s

Thanks for correcting me.

I just had to say it ; Rolling Stone, in the 80s, liked to shit on (now) legendary new wave bands, good metal acts and well-crafted dance/pop. Screw that magazine

VenusBlingBling said:

I keep wondering how this can constantly become an issue. Every freaking magazine is photoshopping their covers. Even if it's a horse or landscape. Shouldn't everyone know this by now?

I think the press likes to randomly pick out any pop artist and do a whole "she was not hot enough" piece when in fact, every celebrity/model on a cover gets airbrushed.

JoeTyler said:

Timmy84 said:

Thanks for correcting me.

I just had to say it ; Rolling Stone, in the 80s, liked to shit on (now) legendary new wave bands, good metal acts and well-crafted dance/pop. Screw that magazine

Yeah, I know. That never sat well with me.