There’s airbrushing and then there’s “who the hell is that on the cover of that magazine”? And that’s exactly the line Lucky magazine crossed with its December 2012 cover, featuring X-Factor judge Britney Spears. Readers took to Twitter to complain that the cover image looked unnatural and overly Photoshopped. They accused the mag of putting a wig on Britney, and retouching her face beyond recognition.
Keep reading »
The cover of a recent issue of LOOK magazine features Rihanna looking, well, a little wonky, no? That’s because the photo of the singer is an exceptionally poor composite, cut and pasted together from two separate images. Rihanna’s head is from a photo taken on the red carpet of the “Battleship” premiere in Japan, while her body was from a photo shot at the Stella McCartney presentation at London Fashion Week. Oh, and her body was flip-flopped and her dress was colored pink instead of green. How creative! Why not just draw a picture of the Rihanna with crayons? Seriously. [Red Carpet Fashion Awards]
Sadly, while Photoshop is a necessary and helpful tool, it is often used to excess, especially when it comes to “perfecting” celebrity images. Just look at these other lovely celeb women who’ve suffered at the hands of an overeager Photoshopper.
Holly Madison wants us to know that she isn’t perfect. And so she allowed Life and Style magazine to publish a photo of her in a bikini without retouching. I don’t see much in the cellulite department, but Holly insists that it’s there. “I have cellulite—and had it even when I was at my absolute thinnest. I’m never not going to have cellulite,” she said. “People need to just accept that it’s there.” Good point, but I’m actually more interested in that scar on her lower back that looks suspiciously like a butterfly tramp stamp that’s been lasered off. [Huffington Post]
Posing for photos sans retouching has become a big celebrity trend. And I gotta give it up for them—there is something reassuring about seeing that famously gorgeous ladies don’t just come that way and understanding that there’s an entire industry that makes people look the way they do on glossy pages. After the jump, more stars without retouching.
Vogue may be the biggest fashion magazine in the world, with the most talented photographers and retouchers at their disposal, but even they are capable of tragic Photoshop butchery. Poor cover girl Kristen Stewart. She’s been rendered almost unrecognizable in one of the photographs featured in the February issue. Surely Anna Wintour didn’t approve this?! [via Cover Awards] Keep reading »
Some say French beauty Marion Cotillard looks tired and haggard without retouching on the cover of Vanity Fair, but I think she looks like a real beauty with a real sense of vulnerability. Peep the photos from her spread inside the mag and let us know what you think of Marion without the power of Photoshop. [Fashion Indie] Keep reading »
UPDATE: So, the people who own the unretouched photos asked us to take them down, so we did, because we had to, but in the meantime, you can still see them here.
By now everyone knows that the photographs that appear in magazines are retouched, but sometimes it takes seeing an unretouched photo of one of Hollywood’s most beloved stars to realize just how much. Behold, outtakes from a photoshoot Jennifer Aniston did with Harper’s Bazaar UK in 2006. Okay, so the expression on her face is clearly mid-laugh or something, so it’s not really, um, attractive, but Jen looks like what, I dunno, I would look like after 10 hours in the sun with sand encrusted in my hair. What do you think? Do you think the retouching looks over the top? Are you surprised by the differences? [ONTD] Keep reading »
“I absolutely was not wearing makeup. Look at the cover — you can tell! My nose has been broken a couple of times. If you look at a retouched cover of me and you look at the Marie Claire cover, you can see there’s a big difference … I really wanted to show women that I’m just a normal person. I take the pictures. I don’t know what the magazine is going to do with it after that. I don’t know what the photographer is going to do with it after that, so it was important for me to make sure that they absolutely did not retouch. I just wanted people to see how I really am.”
— Jessica Simpson responds to those who said she was indeed wearing makeup for the May cover of Marie Claire. Compare her Allure cover with the Marie Claire one. Do you believe her? [Us Weekly] Keep reading »
has put up behind-the-scenes video from their January Jones cover shoot — which looks like amazing fun, BTW — and, in my opinion, the footage totally supports the theory that the photo department did some major retouching on her bosom. We wondered
earlier if Jones’ braless boobs were amplified — they certainly seemed to be awfully big and perky without a lick of support. In the video we get a number of views of Jones’ cleave from the side and girlfriend seems to be rocking a rack that would fit into my B-cup bras, not the Jessica Simpson-esque curves she’s got on the mag’s cover. I don’t get it. Jones looks lovely and sexy au natural
! What’s with the supersizing, GQ
? Keep reading »
Those of you who’ve looked carefully at the new cover of GQ probably noticed that January Jones‘ boobs look, in a word, amazing. And, uh, much bigger than one would’ve thought from skinny Betty Draper? A “source” from inside the magazine squealed and told the New York Post, “They definitely did some significant retouching.” But now GQ‘s photo editor has shot back with this statement:
“Yes, they’re real. And they’re spectacular. People think that a person will look the same in every photograph, but that just doesn’t happen … Terry [Richardson] likes to work with harder lighting, and that can create a stronger shadow—that, and body position and perspective could give the illusion that her breasts are bigger. January Jones needed no help. Trust me.”
Trust me? Doesn’t he sound like a football player in the locker room bragging about the girl he got to first base with after the school dance? Do you agree that the rotundness of her chest could be a lighting issue, or were these totally digitally enhanced? Keep reading »