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