Skip Nav
Beauty Trends
These Are the 10 Hottest Fall 2017 Haircuts, According to Celebrity Stylists
Beauty News
Mandy Moore for Garnier and Other Celebrity Beauty Campaigns of 2017
Beauty Trends
Mario Dedivanovic Wants You to Use $11 Jelly on Your Face For the Perfect Highlight

Redbook Retouches Faith Hill. What Do You Think?

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,

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

vanilla19 vanilla19 9 years
I think the untouched photo looks so much better-she looks more naturally beautiful. It looks way too light under her eyes in the retouched one...not to mention her elbow.
jJuliet jJuliet 10 years
Art is about being mysterious and believable at the same time, and it's hard to achieve this without some form of deception. Movies aren't real--they are filled with special effects, stunt doubles, acting, sets, lighting, actors wearing costumes and makeup, etc. Movies are made for artistic expression and monetary gain. The audience wouldn't have any reason to complain, unless they were expecting a documentary. The same thing holds true with photo retouching. People expect photos to be accurate reproductions of real life, and they feel cheated when they get "art" instead.
JaimeLeah526 JaimeLeah526 10 years
She looks like a 20 year old on the cover. If I saw the cover without seeing the before picture I would think she got too much botox. Why is it that women are not allowed to age? She looks great for her age. She's not on the cover of a fashion mag, it's Redbook, she should look her own age and the age of their readership.
Talullah76 Talullah76 10 years
She's beautiful no matter what. She looked better before the photo touch-up.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 10 years
its not art, its a blantant lie to the readers and consumers. Yes it takes some skill to make someone look so unnatural, but the question here should be "why do it" i understand retouching a zit out or a stray hair, but to make this womans arm so long and thin, to photoshop out her natural curves, and her natural beauty is criminal and unfair to the public. Young girls, even older women look at these pictures and compare themselves, but its like comparing oneself to a cartoon or figment of the imagination. I love that some celebrities have spoken out against this treachery like Jamie Lee Curtis and Jenny McCarthy.
lilxmissxmolly lilxmissxmolly 10 years
ffaith looks gorgeous in hte before doesnt bother me-especially on faith hill. i mean, think of all the women who, like her, have had five kids and are reaching middle-aged. her looking gorgeous says that those things don't make them ugly. i see retouching as a way of upping other womens confidence-although i can see how others would turn it around.
rubiesymusica rubiesymusica 10 years
and we wonder why they complain that when we see them in person we say: "you look different in person". no wonder people feel ugly- retouching makes you look fake and as always fake is the ideal.
mrflibble mrflibble 10 years
If I were her, I would feel humiliated. She is very good looking on the "before" picture.
preppygirl5786 preppygirl5786 10 years
what a difference
yaelatner yaelatner 10 years
after looking closer at the photo I realized that they even photoshopped out the back fat bulge over the dress and made her arm, nose and torso skinnier. That bothers me because Faith is in great shape and she should be celebrated for her beauty, not photoshopped to look like a 12 year old.
yaelatner yaelatner 10 years
Wow! that before photo is like a breath of fresh air! She looks real, human, it's a miracle! I dont mind the over airbrushing and retouching of magazine cover photos, it actually makes me want to buy the magazine because the person on the cover looks so surreal and flawless. But that photo of Faith Hill looks real. I am happy to know that she is normal and has bags under her eyes and beauty marks and wrinkles. Everyone does!
mwmsjuly19 mwmsjuly19 10 years
Sad that her beauty had to be "tweaked" so much to please the masses. Or so they'd have us believe -- since she's a true beauty to start with.
Tnkrbelli Tnkrbelli 10 years
She looked better in the "before" photo. She's such a natural beauty that it really wasn't necessary to touch her up like that! AND, by the way, I know a lot about retouch and it's really not an's pretty easy to do.
crazygirl93 crazygirl93 10 years
There was no point in the photoshopping she looked beautiful before!!!
smarler smarler 10 years
I agree that it takes talent to be a great Photoshop artist, but it's the image that it conveys that is so degrading. Faith Hill is one of the most beautiful women I've seen, and yet, even she isn't perfect enough for this false notion of beauty.
UrbanBohemian UrbanBohemian 10 years
I think she looks just as pretty as she is in the Before shot. Of course the industry wants to make them look better than they actually look, but for what it's worth, she looks fantastic without the retouching.
PinkUnicorn PinkUnicorn 10 years
Retouching may be an art, but turning someone into something they're not in order to fit some societal molde is NOT. At first I didn't think the retouching of Faith was so bad until I went to the Jezebel website and checked out their before and after animation...the amount of retouching is sick. They change the shape of her face, the shape of her entire body...this was not a case of a couple shade changes or airbrushing out a couple of wrinkles.
ohkate ohkate 10 years
as someone trying to break into an industry that has the tendency to perpetuate something that is turning into an anathema for the young girls of our society I'm torn between whether or not to join the crowds and be a touch up guru. what ever happened to aging gracefully? so a woman who is just past her prime has a few wrinkles that show she has smiled much in her youth, why must it be photoshoped out? why does the average consumer need to be lied to and wish she could be something not even the women she is envious of is? blarg. I don't know what I'm getting at, either way I don't agree with all the retouching. be proud of who you are and the smile lines that you've developed over the years. q:
aimeeb aimeeb 10 years
Wow, talk about giving people a complex!
herjoiedevivre herjoiedevivre 10 years
Faith Hill is one of the most grounded and beautiful female singers out there today, and her untouched picture looks as real as she always seems. I think it's wrong of them to do that kind of thing, although I can understand why- without switching the arm, her pose could look kind of awkward. But I think she looks beautiful with the teeny tiny lines on her face. She's a woman, she's lived, and it shows. The retouched photo looks freakish, to me. Although I wonder how she feels- if I took a picture and they didn't slim my back, that might bother me! lol
Itgirlbe Itgirlbe 10 years
She's almost perfect on the cover, you just know it's photoshopped. Such a shame... She's a stunning woman! Want to read more?
dcmurray1970 dcmurray1970 10 years
maybe if the photographer hadnt had her pose in such a weird position she would have looked better.
lil-miss-bella lil-miss-bella 10 years
I don't think retouching should be done as heavily. How old is she, like 36?
tmariej tmariej 10 years
I understand why they do it. It's just hard not to internalize it sometimes.
Casimira Casimira 10 years
Does anyone else see a bit of irony in the fact that the story about them is teased as, "Faith and Tim: What's Normal About Them (And What's Not)," in light of the photoshopping? I think she looked fine before. Weird pose, which created most of the problems in the first place. My brother-in-law lived in Nashville for awhile and one of their friends was in the music industry and worked with Faith and Tim. He got to meet them and said she was absolutely stunning with not a drop of makeup and her hair pulled back into a ponytail. It's a shame that they felt the need to distort her natural beauty. :/
Tim McGraw and Faith Hill's "The Rest of Our Life" Song
Faith Hill With Her Daughters Pictures
Cute Faith Hill and Tim McGraw Pictures
Celebrities Who Were Adopted
From Our Partners
Latest Beauty
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds