Faith Hill photoshopped ad nauseum in Redbook

I have to say, I’m very disappointed in Redbook.  I thought they were a fairly down to earth magazine for mature women (not teens or even young 20-somethings) so I’m surprised that they photoshopped the July cover photo of Faith Hill, a 39-year-old country star/working mother of 3 girls, who looks pretty damn fabulous as it is. The retouched Faith is a third of her size!  Is this really the message Redbook wants to communicate?  That even celebrity moms are too fat and wrinkled?  Is one of the 56 ways to look and feel your hottest (as their cover headline promises) to be completely airbrushed?  Way to make real moms feel like crap. 

Jezebel.com discovered the original photo and analyzes the laundry list of things they changed — they included computerized liposuction of her arms, removal of a mole on her arm, her one gram of backfat, and GASP her clavicle! 

This is the kind of thing you expect in Vogue or Vanity Fair or Elle, not a magazine meant for real moms. What’s next — airbrushing the animals in Ranger Rick?

In response to the outcry, Redbook’s editor in chief Stacy Morrison said,

The retouching we did on Faith Hill’s photo for the July cover of Redbook is completely in line with industry standards. We are investigating how the un-retouched images got released.

Let Redbook’s editor in chief know what you think at [e-mail].

Source: TMZ via Jezebel.com; WWD

Comments

While I agree and I’d like to see a natural Faith, I’d totally love to get my hands on that software!!! Imagine how awesome we could look in family and holiday photos–no dieting or toning required!

- VAMom on July 20th, 2007

Oh My God! I can’t believe all they did to her photo! I mean – SHE HAS NO ARM! It’s amazing what they’ll do to sell mags. I think she looks great just as she is… The only thing I would have done if I were them is touch up the eye wrinkles a little… other than that, why?!! Ugh – seems like nothing is “real” anymore… so sad

- Emily G on July 20th, 2007

Sorry but why blame the magazine? I’m sure Faith herself approved it before it went to newsstands. I don’t think she ever wanted anyone to find the before pic.

- Natasha on July 20th, 2007

OMG! Her arm is as thin as a pencil! And they made her waist look like it was squeezed into a corset! I like Faith just the way she is in the original photo.. she looks like a NORMAL woman/mother in that pic! The “backfat” just shows the world that she’s a normal human being, not an anorexic twig who will do anything to be skinny.

- Becky on July 20th, 2007

Holy cow, to say that’s terrible is an understatement. I don’t buy Redbook, but I did read this issue at my salon over the weekend and I remember taking a few seconds to look the front cover over and thinking how awesome and flawless she looked. Of course she is still the same without the airbrushing, but just….wow. I am extremely disappointed in Redbook. And yes we should all write them a letter. Even if it’s just two sentences to say what they did was wrong.

It’s one of those issues that we all kind of know that these magazines do this kind of thing but to actually see it broken down like that is something else.

- Jessica L. on July 20th, 2007

At least it’s a better Photoshop job than Redbook did on Jennifer Aniston a few years ago, where they cut and pasted different pics of her together and her head was HUGE. At this point it’s best to just assume whatever we are seeing has been retouched, it’s the norm.

- Carolyn on July 20th, 2007

Faith looks terrific in the before shot!!

I must’ve missed the memo… when did “Redbook” become a publication for “real moms”? As far as I can tell, it’s always been a ladies’ magazine of the likes of Good Housekeeping, the now-defunct McCall’s, and Ladies’ Home Journal – all of which do contain a certain percentage of content devoted to one’s appearance. GH and LHJ routinely photoshop/airbrush their cover celebs, I didn’t think Redbook would be any different. Regardless of the target audience age of Redbook readers, it is still a “mainstream” publication. I’m not at all surprised they photoshopped Faith within an inch of her life. Look at the teasers on the cover: “skinny pills, yes they work!” etc. Doesn’t seem very earthy to me…

Thanks for posting their email, I’ll definitely shoot them a letter & sound off about it.

- corinne on July 20th, 2007

Wow They even trimmed down her thigh! I am with you I wish I could own a copy of the software! I would make milllions! hahaha She looked awesome before.

Ya know, no wonder they look so different in person. Then a tabloid does a scoop on them all of a sudden being “fat” well it is because of the altering that was done!

Shame, Shame, Shame!

- 2 boys momma on July 20th, 2007

Wow they made Faith look at least 15 – almost 20 yrs younger with all of their editing, and almost more fashion model than country singer. (Making her look like a model is probably a dig at the fact that more celebrities appear on the cover of magazines than models today.)

Anyway, I’m glad to see the before pic just to see that even Faith Hill isn’t that absolutely perfect anymore.

As far as Photoshop goes, it usually costs several hundred dollars (PS CS3 is currently selling for $649 on Adobe.com. Yikes, that’s about the price of a low end PC or laptop!) and to be able to do that good of a job, it takes practice. I’ve had an older edition on my PCs at work & home for over a year, and my images never come out looking that smooth yet!

- Autumn on July 20th, 2007

I have ALWAYS loved Faith Hill! She is one of the most beautiful ladies out there! I think she looks stunning in her before photo! Sure she may need a little sleep, but other than that she looks amazing! Better than I do at 25 even!

It’s so normal for magazines to “touch up” celebs, but to cut them in half is another thing… It’s like the Katie Couric thing all over again! She didn’t even know about it so I wonder if Faith did.

- Tracy on July 20th, 2007

Magazines do this sort of thing all the time (even to celebrities who already look perfect). We notice some more than others. I don’t necessiarily agree with it. If you don’t agree with it, don’t buy the magazine.

- Jennifer on July 20th, 2007

This is sad – even a women as beautiful as Faith had to go under Photoshop. Disappointing.

- AnnieLaurie on July 20th, 2007

Danielle, I totally agree. Personally, I think she looks better in the original photo. I wonder if the new photo not only makes other women feel bad, but Faith as well…. like something is wrong with the way she already is. Why does the media feel like they have to improve on what’s already good? It’s really very cruel. It seems like this country has lost touch with what real beauty is.

- LaMama on July 20th, 2007

Wow, this post really shocked me, and so did the responses to it. Everyone seems kind of divided on the issue. Now don’t get me wrong, I like everyone love to look good in photos, however, I am against photoshopping to this degree. Faith Hill is a beautiful woman, but this magazine cover makes her look like every other skinny starlet out there. She seems to be a woman of substance who has actual talent and who uses her fame to advance social cause (such as literacy). However, if she did approve this photo shame on her. I know she wants to look her best, but what kind of example is she setting for young girls out there? She is a role model for teenage girls everywhere, and she is a darn good person to look up too. But this picture just seems to scream that being a skinny minnie is what is beautiful, which isn’t the truth. I am a big girl, but let me tell you, I am beautiful.

I am a high school teacher and I see what these teenage girls go through to look like these photoshopped pictures of celebrities, and it is sickening. Even if you tell them that photos like this are air brushed they don’t care. They don’t care because they have been indoctrinated by society that every girl has to be perfect. I am truly disappointed that RedBook decided to air brush this photo. Faith Hill is beautiful, especially without the airbrushing.

Emily G, no they should not airbrush her eye wrinkles. They are a fact of life, every woman gets them. They are a testament to the life she has led and make her more beautiful.

THANK YOU TO CBB FOR POSTING THIS MESSAGE!!

- Melissa on July 20th, 2007

My husband is a professional photographer, and nothing irks him more than going through my magazines and pointing out all the photos that have been re-touched, especially the ones that weren’t needed and are unrealistic. When he sees pictures where the celebrity has no wrinkles, much less typical lines of any sort, he gets upset. To see the before picture of Faith and the after cover, with all the airbrushing and the changes in her hair color, really hits home. The standard that is out there is unrealistic. No one can live up to the standards that the media puts out there, not even the celebrities. The message that that sends to the “real public” is that you’re not good enough, but neither are they, but you should try harder to obtain that reality. When does it stop, and with whom? The publisher, the editor, the photographer? Typically, the celebrities don’t know or have input on the final pictures that make the cut. If the public boycotts magazines on the basis of the false reporting of pictures, we are left with very little, as they all do it, maybe not too that extreme, but they do. Until someone like Jaime Lee Curits, who did the photo shoot with and without re-touching, develops a magazine, I’ll stick with the news, for better or worse.

- April on July 20th, 2007

I don’t think Redbook cares about what they are communicating. They are not a ‘not for profit’. They are in it to make money. I guess they feel that photoshopped covers sell more. Who knows. It’s business. And I think by now, their little game isn’t a secret. Many people know the cover shots of celebs aren’t real.

- madison on July 20th, 2007

While I’m not shocked they airbrushed her, I’m sad that they felt the compulsion to do so. I just saw her in concert Tuesday night and thought to myself “Wow, she still looks amazing!”. I think she’s so beautiful and a great role model. Also, she looks so much more real in the original photo. The retouched one makes her look like a plastic Barbie doll. It’s horrible that everyone is so obsessed with size these days.

- Bridget on July 20th, 2007

And they wonder why young girls/women have self image problems… Well photoshopping photos isn’t new thing it’s been going on for years. Like everything else it’s just being finally talked about. I think it’s good that CBB featured this. It’s a great way to show young girls & women that not everyone in Hollywood or celebrity looks that good (meaning the cover) no matter how perfect they think the person is.

- Natalie S. on July 20th, 2007

why on earth is everyone acting like they’re surprised? Of course they retouched her. So do dozens of other magazines to their images, every week. That’s what they do, right or wrong. It’s hardly new or surprising.

- Katie on July 20th, 2007

Omgosh! Her arm looks so distorted whatever they did to it in Photoshop!! She looks anorexic in the Photoshop one. She appears much better in the Original–they should’ve kept it that way! It looks like they added globs more make up on her face too….sheesh!

- Doreen on July 20th, 2007

That’s disgusting and disturbing. I wrote a very long email to the address provided. I know I’m no longer reading Redbook unless they stop this. And yes, most magazines do photoshop, but not to this extent. Removing blemishes is one thing, removing 1/2 of someone’s body to make them look anorexic is another. And Redbook isn’t Vogue. It’s not about super-perfect women, it’s supposed to be for everyday women. Not anymore. I’m forwarding these pictures to my friends, and I know they won’t be reading this magazine anymore unless they change their ways.

- Noelle on July 20th, 2007

Something I forgot to mention earlier was that even though digital editing to this degree is a faily new phenomenon, artist license with someone’s image is a historic thing as well.

A century ago, the ideal woman was portayed in Charles Gibson’s “Gibson Girl” drawings & lithographs which showed women with incredibly thin waistlines, which then caused real women to diet and/or wear their corset’s fair too tight.

Two hundred & more years ago, real life women such as Martha Washington, Marie Antionette, and other royals & celebrities of the time had their potraits painted without wrinkles or blemishes, thus being preserved for history in a perpetual state of “youth” despite how old they were/what they’d probably really looked like when they passed away.

So obviously, even historically, ideal beauty has been more achieved through the tip of an artist’s* paintbrush & their mind, rather than actually achieved in the real world.

(*Imagine if we women tried to strive to look like a comic book artist’s ideal for women? We’d all look like body builders, with a Gibson Girl’s waistline! lol!)

- Autumn on July 20th, 2007

There was nothing wrong with her picture in the first place. She needed a bit more eye make up but I don’t like how they chopped off her arm and stomach and shoulders.

- Julie on July 20th, 2007

I love Faith Hill she looks great the way she is. I don’t think it’s true that Faith Hill gave her approval. Celebs don’t have final say on what’s done to the photo. If she really didn’t want the original seen that she wouldd’ve had surgery or burned them.

Redbook has done this before.

- Pete on July 20th, 2007

Did anyone else notice that in the photoshopped version her elbow is WAY too low??
Makes her look like she’s got monkey arms!!

On a less humorous note I am so sad to see that they took a beautiful picture and made it less beautiful, in my opinion.

- Anne on July 20th, 2007

All magazines with celebrities are airbrushed whether your 20yrs or whether your 40yrs and if faith agreed with it, well than she must have not thought it was such a bog deal. And if anybody doesn’t agree with it, there’s a simple way of dealing with it, don’t read or buy the magazine lol.

- gianna on July 20th, 2007

Natasha,

I don’t think that Faith had any say at all on what they did with her image once they took it. Typically, the photograph belongs to the person who took it, and they can do whatever they want to it.

I, unfortunately, am also not surprised. The media today is more consumed to see celebrities as a marketable commodity, and not real people, and now that they have the technology to “erase” any “flaws” on their subjects, they do so unhesitatingly, and often times to extremes. The standards that apply to the rest of the world don’t apply to fashion, celebrities, and the media. That’s why “plus size” in the modeling world means a size 8.

- Stephanie on July 20th, 2007

I find it ironic that the subtitle under “Faith and Tim” is “what’s normal about them (and what’s not)”.

Faith looked beautiful before, and naturally, normally so.

I never believe any photo in a magazine anymore. After seeing examples of what Photoshop can do, I don’t know if I’ll ever trust what I’m seeing.

- jules on July 20th, 2007

I’m with Katie, I’m not surprised! EVERY magazine out there photoshops there images! Come one they’ve done it for years! Even Kelly Ripa jokes about how they do that to her and to not be decieved by the photos that appear in the magazines(Kelly’s also appeared on Redbook numerous times).

So this shouldn’t shock anyone. I am not saying it’s right because it’s not and it does bring up a lot of issues that women have about how they feel about their body but you also have to be an adult and not buy into everything you read and see.

All these magazines are in competition. We are the one’s that support and buy the magazines. It’s the society we live in. If there is a photoshopped image of Faith Hill over a natural image of say Queen Latifah the magazine people are most likely to buy is the one with the skinny girl! Magazines are not stupid they know what sells and what PEOPLE will buy!!!

I think Faith looks beautiful in the non touched photo. I honestly looked at both images and didn’t see the difference until I finished reading the comments, then I could tell.

If many of you were to scan through all your magazines sitting around that you purchased most will have an airbrushed cover of a celeb, so I ask, whose to blame? The magazine for photoshopping or the person purchasing the issue (and I am aware that magazines are bought for articles and not just the person on them but lets face it many times people will pick up a magazine and purchase it if there is a celebrity on the cover they wish to read about). The question is how much will you as a person buy into the image that’s on the cover?!

I wish more magazines would leave well enough alone and realize that all people are beautiful inside and out no matter how big or small.

- J.M. on July 20th, 2007

First and foremost I don’t have the first idea if Faith truly knows about this… Magazines are rags in terms of pics… There are a whole lotta lights, makeup,wardrobe, wind machines, and hours and hours and hours of folks that are literally trying to make the “perfect” photo… I’d like to think that Faith at this point in the game is AWARE… maybe she just hasn’t truly become aware of how this might affect HER GIRLS’ WORLD… Still, I truly believe Tim and Faith do the best they can… Life’s tough.

- Campbell on July 20th, 2007

Not too much I want to say — except that from a pregnant, on her way to being a third time mom who struggles with body image when I’m at my best and not pregnant and who REALLY struggles during pregnancy — and I’m not feeling all that pretty right now (as I type through tears — and realize I am somehow unable to stop these run on sentenses!) Thank for what you wrote, your opinion, and the way you expressed it (and for bringing me a little comfort) Great job on noticing, and standing for something important. Hats off to you!

- ab on July 20th, 2007

Sad to say I’m not surprised either. My dad worked in printing for years and would tell me how much magazine photos were retouched. Him letting me know that from an early age actually helped my self-esteem – it was nice to know that even “perfect” movie stars needed some help.
Many women’s magazines try to play the game of reinforcing stick thin women while also saying that women shouldn’t care about body size. It is very confusing for young women and I think we do a disservice to our teens.

- Jennifer on July 20th, 2007

Did anybody notice right under the word Red by Faith’s face? Hmm that isn’t supposed to mean something! “the new SKINNY PILLS yes, they work!” Kinda ironic huh!?!

- jilliansmommy on July 20th, 2007

This to me is buisness as usual. If Faith has a problem with the “backwash” of this, then so be it… I’d say she is probably being bombarded with all of this by now. Which ever is true.. Please, folks lets don’t BLAME Faith… Who knows what her contract says and, jeeeeez, now a days, people pick, pick, pick, EVERYTHING that is written down…. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be contract responsible, but MY GOODNESS Somehow, I’d like to think that Faith herself would be peeved by this whole thing.. JMO

- Campbell on July 20th, 2007

while this pic is upsetting, its certainly nothing new and i’m actually more upset about the comments of the magazine being for mature women, not twentysomethings and for real moms… i’m in my 20′s and a real mom and i subscribe to it! jmo

- Christine on July 20th, 2007

I have to say, I’m surprised by all the shock and dismay over this re-touching. Anyone who knows anything about the media industry, specifically magazines and/or photography, knows that airbrushing is the norm. Even when I had professional photos taken a few years back, the photographer and I were talking and he said, “the models on the covers of magazines are all airbrushed to hell. Nobody really looks like that.” That doesn’t necessarily make it right, especially to this degree, but that’s reality. As for Redbook being a magazine for “mature women?” Look at the cover! It’s no different than my backcopies of Seventeen magazine, which are aimed at supposedly less mature young girls and women. That entire cover is about getting women to look and act like socialites. Why anyone is surprised that they’d sink so low as to totally distort their cover model is beyond me.

- Lauren on July 20th, 2007

What does this have to do with celebrating celebrities and their children?

- Carol on July 20th, 2007

Letter sent to editor – subscription cancelled.

- Katy Townsend on July 20th, 2007

When I got the magazine, I could tell right away it was airbrushed- what isn’t these days?
I’ve been listening to Faith since I was a toddler and she doesn’t look the way she did in 92′. If anything I think she’s gotten better with age, you can see in and around her eyes how far along she has come you know what I mean?

Anyways, I saw her in concert last year and Im seeing her next week, and I LOVED that she looks like a healthy normal person in person. She looks like a real woman and I was so relieved to see she looked human and not ‘Hollywood’ and I believe Faith herself has said several times how shes proud of her curves and she knows she has some junk in the trunk and she doesn’t look the same as she did when she was 20.

If anything I admire her more for embracing her flaws. I prefer the before pic definitely, and Im 19 and would kill to look as great as her. I think blonde suits her better as well and gives her this glow more so than the brunette she was sporting for a bit.

- Catherine on July 20th, 2007

Thank you CBB for exposing this. Shame on you, Redbook.

- daphneesmith on July 20th, 2007

She looked great even before all the photoshopping! It seems they elongated her arm as well, darkened her dress, even! What else are they going to do? She’s not Gumby, someone you can mold and stretch into what you think will look good!

Bad enough they’ve made cameras that can take photos of you and in the process do the chop shop of you in the photo for you.

- FC on July 20th, 2007

I think she looks so much happier in the real photo, and I just realized why…it’s the wrinkles. They are from a genuine smile.

- Angela on July 20th, 2007

Again I say: what does this have to do with celebrating celebrities and their children?

- Carol on July 21st, 2007

I would love to look how she looks in the untouched picture and i’m only 22!! Lol! Why have they given her an anorexic arm???!!! In the picture on the left Faith looks like Jessica Simpson!

- Becky on July 21st, 2007

I’ve come to expect airbrushing in magazines, especially the covers. Brighten colours in the clothes to match the layout, flip images, take out the wrinkles and spots, etc. But I think there’s a difference between that and inventing bodyparts like they seem to have done here. It looks like a hand on her thigh in the original, but it’s a completely different arm in the other. Weird. I love these types of things, especially the Jamie-Lee Curtis before and after.

- Lilybett on July 21st, 2007

The sad part about this is that if I saw the real Faith in person, based on these type of photos, I’d assume she was an impersonator rather than the real deal. lol

- JennH on July 21st, 2007

The photo on the cover shows a robot and the photo on the right is of a human. Doesn’t SHE , Faith, have anything to say about it? Kate Winslet doesn’t let them do that to her image. Thank you for pointing it out. Thank you for insisting on reality.

- brookefan on July 21st, 2007

many of you are “disgusted” with the redbook cover, but many of you are also the same mothers who day in and and out praise or are jealous of the celebrities for bouncing back to their pre-baby weight and proclaim that you wish you looked that good too. i have seen comments about readers who would like a tummy tuck or some other kind of plastic surgery to fix what your body has gone through after a pregnancy instead of being satisfied with how your body shape currently is. so, where shall we draw the hypocrisy line? all of you who want tummy tucks and want to drop the weight are also feeding into the airbrushed images that are on newsstands today, so lets not get all high and mighty about the whole thing.

Note from Danielle, CBB Publisher: Have you considered that wanting a tummy tuck or lipo may also have something to do with wanting to get back to one’s pre-pregnancy body? Pregnancy CAN wreak havoc on your body, especially if you gained a lot, so many women wish they could get back to the way they were, especially after having more than 1 kid.

I’m not denying that there is a lot of pressure from Hollywood to be skinny, but I know that I would love to get rid of my belly that has plagued me my whole life and which pregnancy only made worse. There are only so many situps you can do!

- lee on July 21st, 2007

I am glad we all got to see the before but its definately the norm now to photoshop. I think that for Faith it probably would be nice to have her make up touched up in the photo(looks like they added darker eye makeup) but I do think the thin part is way to extreme. I mean she is a tall thin women naturally. I have always admired her healthy look because though she was tall and thin she always looked like she had a healthy glow to her. Its sad but the way our society is. Like Lee has stated people make such a huge deal about people bouncing back to their prepregnancy weight that I am not surprised. If we all focus less on how heavy an actress or actor is and focus more on the work then maybe it wouldn’t be this way but right now that is not the case with society and it is getting to be quite sad annd extreme. I mean we are criticizing a magazine for photoshop yet we come here to oogle at celebrities’ children who aren’t famous for their work but for their famous parents. That wasn’t the norm years ago and years ago people would probably think we are nuts. I am not criticizing the website because I love it but I do see why these things happen and its a weird world we live in today.

- Bren on July 21st, 2007

Natasha,

It is entirely up to the magazine and is their fault. I doubt Faith had a say in it whatsoever. Over a decade ago, another popular magazine (can’t remember which one) was under fire when they had Cher on their cover and completely made her look like she was 20 years younger than she was when in fact, similarly to Faith, cover, she looked great in the original untouched shot. It was all over the morning talk shows if I remember correctly, and Cher was reportedly outraged by it. I mean who wouldn’t right?

- ht on July 21st, 2007

Faith Hill always seemed just a bit materialistic to me so I’m not surprised it was re-touched. I’m sure most of her photos are. Boo to Redbook.

- Emily on July 22nd, 2007

ht, Well obviously she wouldn’t admit to having anything to do with it

I just think that celebs don’t just take a pic and leave don’t they do interviews and approve things before they go out to newstands.

I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t WANT to look younger when they’re 40.

- Natasha on July 22nd, 2007

I bet she didn’t know. Kate Winslet threw a fit when she found out she’d been photoshopped. And, someone else already mentioned Katie Curic. Bad on Redbook!

- MZ on July 22nd, 2007