Why Did Page Six Magazine Photoshop The Living Hell Out Of Heidi Klum’s Butt?
Posted by: Amelia McDonell-Parry
Filed in:
celebs
9:20AM, Wednesday September 9th 2009
The image above is not the offending image. The offending image is after the jump—that’s how wonky it is. So, Heidi Klum is on the cover of this week’s quarterly issue of Page Six Magazine and I don’t know when they did the photo shoot, but Heidi is mega preggers right now, so it must have been forevs ago OR they shot it recently and went to Crazy Town with the retouching. Whatever the case may be, they did a horrendous job. Heidi’s got an enviable “curvy” (for a model) and motherly physique—this hack job gives her what my coworker calls “totes flapjacks.” It ain’t right! Click after the jump to see Heidi’s wonk ass.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Jamie Lee
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 08:31 am: [report]
its like they superimposed a 3 year olds tush on her…and they have it about six inches lower than it should be…wow…its so weird looking…
Infamous
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 08:41 am: [report]
Gross it looks like an old man’s butt.
Raugiel
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:25 am: [report]
It does not look like that butt could be attached to the rest of that body, at least if the owner wants to walk properly! She’s already got a nice butt, so why the weird retouch?
Keesh Mia
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:38 am: [report]
Her butt is flat and disproportioned
Kati-Anne
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]
There is no way her crack could be all the way up there in the first picture and her cheeks all the way down there in the second picture. I thought retouching was supposed to make you look better.
LostInStars
wrote on September 9 2009 @ 10:33 am: [report]
Is it just me, or is her butt about a foot lower than it should be?
Crestina
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 07:58 pm: [report]
Wow, is she the incredible stretching woman or what?
_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 08:10 pm: [report]
OK, I actually cropped the images, scaled them to the same height, and put them side by side here.
Yes, I’m sure there was some photo editing done. But if you drag one image over the other, you’ll see that the parts do match up, even though it doesn’t seem like they would.
_jsw_
wrote on September 11 2009 @ 08:15 pm: [report]
Oh, I also stretched the one by a bit width-wise, and it looks a lot more realistic. See here.
I suspect that’s the real problem - the image was compressed horizontally and/or stretched vertically. The proportions are right (vertically, at least), but the image looks off for that reason.