Archives
July 2007
7/31/07
7/31/07
7/31/07
7/30/07
7/30/07
7/30/07
7/29/07
7/28/07
7/27/07
7/27/07
7/27/07
7/26/07
7/26/07
7/26/07
7/25/07
7/25/07
7/25/07
7/24/07
7/24/07
7/24/07
7/23/07
7/23/07
7/23/07
7/22/07
7/21/07
7/20/07
7/20/07
7/20/07
7/19/07
7/19/07
7/19/07
7/18/07
7/18/07
7/18/07
One More Reason Why You Should Never Trust a Celebrity Magazine Cover, Like, Ever
7/17/07
7/17/07
7/17/07
7/16/07
7/16/07
7/16/07
7/15/07
7/14/07
7/13/07
7/13/07
7/13/07
7/13/07
7/12/07
7/12/07
7/12/07
7/11/07
7/11/07
7/11/07
7/10/07
7/10/07
7/10/07
7/9/07
7/9/07
7/9/07
7/8/07
7/6/07
7/6/07
7/5/07
7/5/07
7/5/07
7/4/07
7/3/07
7/3/07
7/3/07
7/2/07
7/2/07
7/2/07
7/2/07
7/1/07
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
6:35:00 AM EDT
Hearing Nothing. It's too early.
The Jezebel blogs, which covers women's magazine in that snarky blog way we all love well, takes a hammer to Redbook magazine for how they've Photoshopped Faith Hill, their most recent cover celebrity, all to hell and gone for her cover. The entry has the "before" and "after" images alternating, so you can get a good idea of just what's been photoshopped and why. Basically, Redbook has taken a majorly attractive 39-year-old woman and digitally airbrushed her back into some indetermine 20-something age, erasing eye wrinkles, thinning out arms and straightening out her back. The end result looks great; it's just doesn't look like what Faith Hill actually looks like.
What should be done about stuff like this? Not much, I suppose; I don't see how, say, outlawing the Photoshopping of celebrity covers on women's magazines would much of anything useful, even if it were constitutionally possible, which it isn't. But what I think that such extensive Photoshopping indicates is a tacit admission by women's magazines that the image they're trying to promote -- that they're trying to get their readers to buy and live -- is absolutely unobtainable.
Look, when even Faith Hill needs digital help to be presentable for the cover of Redbook, something's wrong, because, you know, look at the unaltered picture of her. There's not a thing wrong with that woman. As the folks as Jezebel put it (and I'm putting in the asterisks that are left out over there): "is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the freckles, the moles, the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of f***ing soap?" It's one thing to make someone look attractive for a magazine cover; it's another to perform surgery, and present it as an ideal.
So, yeah. The next time you look at a magazine cover and see a celebrity and think, yeah, wow, I wish I had a body like that, keep in mind that the celebrity probably doesn't have a body like that, either. They just have professional art directors pointing and clicking them into another body shape.
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
6:35:00 AM EDT
Hearing Nothing. It's too early.
One More Reason Why You Should Never Trust a Celebrity Magazine Cover, Like, Ever
The Jezebel blogs, which covers women's magazine in that snarky blog way we all love well, takes a hammer to Redbook magazine for how they've Photoshopped Faith Hill, their most recent cover celebrity, all to hell and gone for her cover. The entry has the "before" and "after" images alternating, so you can get a good idea of just what's been photoshopped and why. Basically, Redbook has taken a majorly attractive 39-year-old woman and digitally airbrushed her back into some indetermine 20-something age, erasing eye wrinkles, thinning out arms and straightening out her back. The end result looks great; it's just doesn't look like what Faith Hill actually looks like.
What should be done about stuff like this? Not much, I suppose; I don't see how, say, outlawing the Photoshopping of celebrity covers on women's magazines would much of anything useful, even if it were constitutionally possible, which it isn't. But what I think that such extensive Photoshopping indicates is a tacit admission by women's magazines that the image they're trying to promote -- that they're trying to get their readers to buy and live -- is absolutely unobtainable.
Look, when even Faith Hill needs digital help to be presentable for the cover of Redbook, something's wrong, because, you know, look at the unaltered picture of her. There's not a thing wrong with that woman. As the folks as Jezebel put it (and I'm putting in the asterisks that are left out over there): "is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the freckles, the moles, the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of f***ing soap?" It's one thing to make someone look attractive for a magazine cover; it's another to perform surgery, and present it as an ideal.
So, yeah. The next time you look at a magazine cover and see a celebrity and think, yeah, wow, I wish I had a body like that, keep in mind that the celebrity probably doesn't have a body like that, either. They just have professional art directors pointing and clicking them into another body shape.
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has 4 comments: (Add your own)
-
Even in the original she still looks fake. Lose the makeup!
-
She looks like wax in the retouched photo. The fact is this woman has three children and people are commenting on the bags under her eyes and crows feet on the other site and I'm like,"She's a mommy of three, she has a tour going right now, and maybe she's decided against botox. " If that's the case I say good for her. I like more natural photos anyway. All this stuff makes for unrealistc looking women who create some standard no one could live up to! -Dawn-
-
Re: Faith Hill...I don't think that the end is result is beautiful, as you do. I liked her originally (i.e REAL) look a lot more. Certainly more like someone I'd wanna hang out with rather than that Barbie Doll. It's sad to me.
Nancy
http://journals.aol.com/nhd106/Nancyluvspix/
8/3/07 12:28 AM