another before & after

magicbastarder

http://jezebel.com/gossip/photoshop-of-horrors/heres-our-winner-redbook-shatters-our-faith-in-well-not-publishing-but-maybe-god-278919.php

it's actually probably a standard enough example of the practice - which makes it all the more depressing.

gandalf

Yep its pathetic, I think she is far more attractive in the original photo as well, theres something (obviously) unnatural about the magazine cover.

Personally I wouldn't edit a photo in this way (apart from the fact my photoshop skills suck). All I do at the moment is black & white conversion (via the method), adjusting contrast and saturation or cropping. Anything else is not representing of the moment you captured (then again others will argue on their artistic interpretation of the picture).

Spyral

state

magicbastarder

her arm in the photoshop looks like it'd snap if you startled her.

MooseJam

I don't know how she could let that be published, people should have a no photoshop rule before they agree to be interviewed

magicbastarder

i think you'll find that somewhere between 100% and 100% of women's magazine covers are photoshopped these days.

sineadw

MooseJam wrote:

I don't know how she could let that be published, people should have a no photoshop rule before they agree to be interviewed

That's the sad bit - seems its so common now (and worse than that) that the celebs are afraid to be portrayed naturally - they'd stand out too much.