Faith Hill’s Photoshop Retouching On REDBOOK — Give me a break!
Posted by Catherine Morgan on July 17, 2007
More proof that women are attempting to live up to a standard that doesn’t exits. SHAME ON YOU REDBOOK.
How can women and young girls ever feel good about their own appearance, when magazines like this are continuing to perpetuate a false image for them?
This is just WRONG! REDBOOK disrespects it’s readers and women everywhere with this type of action and attempt at deception. Women are beautiful…What REDBOOK has done is UGLY.
NEWS FLASH to REDBOOK: Women have curves, women have freckles, women have laugh lines, and women are beautiful just the way they are! STOP THE DECEPTION!!!!
YOU CAN SEE THE COMPARISON PICTURE AT JEZEBEL, THEY DID A GREAT JOB WITH IT.
Redbook happens to have a photo editor named Bruce Perez so we are going to be reverse-sexist and, instead of the magazine’s female creative director, blame him for the fact that Faith Hill looks sooooo very Carrie Underwood on the cover of Redbook. We don’t know Bruce, but here’s what we imagine he told the underling charged with this Photoshop task… after the jump. — read full article
Jamie Lee Curtis is my REAL WOMAN ROLE MODEL. She has been ever since I saw her on a news program revealing her magazine image, as compared to her actual “real” image. I will never forget how good that interview made me feel. She was fearless. 
If you need more examples of how magazine publishers are retouching images that readers believe are actual photos, here are some…
July 17, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I as an artist can understand some touching up but not so much as here depicted. It is hard to tell that it is her. I personally know that anyone photographed looks really scary magnified and some degree of editing must be done. But you are right this seems a bit much.
July 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm
[...] Retouching:Faith Hill and Beyond Posted by chaos Filed in Blogging [...]
July 17, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Say it Ain’t So
I really hope this isn’t true. Supposedly the picture on the left is of Katie Couric, the one and only, at some CBS event at Carnegie Hall. The one on the left is a Reuterized (Photoshopped is the most popular word) version of the same picture…
July 17, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Thanks for posting this. What’s immediately striking to me is that in all of the pictures they have lightened the women’s skin tone.
July 17, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Just one of the many reasons why I never pick up any of those trashy magazines.
November 10, 2007 at 9:50 pm
The weird thing to me is that I think that all the untouched photos look better than the retouched ones…certainly sexier. Seriously, as a bi-curious woman, those girls (or is it the same girl?) look way better in the first pictures with real skin tone and a realer feeling to it, especially since she is pretty flawless to begin with…the tinier waist and bigger boobs and cartoon like smoothness of the skin makes her look, well cartoon like. And yes, cartoon’s can sometimes be slightly sexy, but not like the real thing. And as for Katie Couric, she’s not really my type, but everybody knows that she will forever be cute as a button however old she gets or however much weight she gains or loses, whatever, she couldn’t lose that cuteness if she tried, so I don’t think she has anything to worry about. I don’t know about Faith Hill, I think they just took a bad picture of her, she’s 39 and has a few wrinkles under her eyes, but she is still very beautiful and I think that the lighting of the original photoshoot may have highlighted that and worsened her slight flaws and then they tried to fix it by photoshopping, so they could take it back and have a perfect Faith…but obviously they went too far.
I’m not of the thinking that all retouching should go away though. It’s hard enough for a women to age (or gain weight, whatever) in front of family and friends, imagine how hard it would be to do that on magazines and in front of millions of people. You simply cannot know unless you’ve been there, the pressure and feelings of loss and embarrassment must be multipled greatly. Some people blame the magazines for perpetuating an ideal of womanly beauty that is impossible to reach, but we all know that it is fake anyway, and I think sometimes it’s kinda like a case of “reverse racism” in that regular people (i.e. non celebrities) SAY that they just want a fair deal and to not have to live up to some impossible standard, but some (SOME, not all)…a few people are really getting off on bringing the veil down and exposing celebrities for being human and looking bad sometimes…Basically getting off on…getting pleasure from humiliating someone else. And that’s wrong, no matter who it involves. On the other hand, we especially have to take care of our young and/or vulnerable sisters of womanhood that need to know that they are as beautiful as any model and that they don’t have to struggle all the time to be perfect. It’s a balance I think.
November 11, 2007 at 1:22 am
Thanks for your comment Harriet. I agree that the first photo with the retouching almost looks like a cartoon character…and that is not flattering at all. I also think that some degree of retouching is okay, as long as it doesn’t go too far. Thanks again for taking the time to comment.
January 16, 2008 at 3:15 pm
[...] receive. Here are a few examples of what was on the cover, and what the actual picture looks like: Faith Hill’s Photoshop Retouching On REDBOOK — Give me a break! « women 4 hope This one, of Faith Hill on the cover of Redbook is equally as horrible. You can see where they [...]
July 1, 2008 at 2:01 pm
good job,
July 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Umm…why are there people worried about how a magazine is using it’s marketing skills wisely instead of doing something that will actually better the world?