Interesting of Faith Hill and Photoshop

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/07/2008 03:01:36 PM · #1

For her age she looks great even without the PP. However, for the mag's sake, the PP is excellent!

Faith Hill before and after

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/07/2008 03:05:52 PM · #2

the more I look at it the more freaky her arm looks on the Redbook cover.

Nice work on the back flab though.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

01/07/2008 03:07:11 PM · #3

I think it's sad that PP is taken to that degree. Makes you wonder who had the final say on the modifications; Faith, her agent, or Redbook?

In the final product (assuming the original is the real one) she's lost probably 10-15 lbs, AND, she has gotten her arm back.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/07/2008 03:07:54 PM · #4

I know, that is the sad part.

jpochard

Canon EOS-40D

01/07/2008 03:09:56 PM · #5

Yeah...I don't like the arm in the photoshopped one.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2008 03:12:45 PM · #6

Here is a better link with more closeup look:

Faith and Photoshop Closeup

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

01/07/2008 03:31:23 PM · #7

They should have PS'd in a different dress. That one screams out Belinda Carlisle, circa 1983.

Mike_Adams

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

01/07/2008 03:36:11 PM · #8

It just mystifies me, no not the PS talent, or the fact that it can and will be done. But how ironic is it that on the Redbook cover it says "LOVE YOUR LIFE" Seriously??? Love your life, BUT not enough to keep a picture accurate. Love your life but not if you have a little extra from having several kids? Love your life, but not if you have some natural and beautiful wrinkles?? It is amazing. She is a beautiful woman and somebody I won't guess who thought she needed to look more beautiful and more perfect?? But clearly she needs to LOVE HER LIFE. Its hard to love your life when all you see is images that have been enhanced to a point where no one naturally can achieve that look. Sorry climbing off my high horse now.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

01/07/2008 03:48:27 PM · #9

She could take the money and run :-)

I thought it was more normal to get another model to do the same pose and then edit on from the neck up. Compilations of 'best' parts are not unknown when there's a lot of skin...

icu1965

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

01/07/2008 03:56:33 PM · #10

I'm no expert by any means, but after clicking on the second link, to the close up page, I have to wonder about it. The 2 photos they're comparing are different. She's posed differently. Unless they took her head and put it on someone elses body for the cover? The magazine cover is not the same as the other photo.

icu1965

Sony DSLR-A200

Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6

01/07/2008 03:57:16 PM · #11

Originally posted by Telehubbie:

They should have PS'd in a different dress. That one screams out Belinda Carlisle, circa 1983.

LOL, I just read your comment. The Go-Go's rock!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

01/07/2008 03:58:21 PM · #12

Originally posted by icu1965:

I think I might have to agree with you there.

smilebig4me1x

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

01/07/2008 04:18:58 PM · #13

Originally posted by icu1965:

I agree too..the legs are even different on esch photo and she went from just a right hand showing to just a right arm... :O

pix-al

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/07/2008 04:33:35 PM · #14

Deffinately the same photo - The pattern, colours and creases in the dress are all in the right place, as are most of the whisps of hair. This is just highly manipulated with the image being skewed and stretched about. Her right arm has been added where her right hand originally was (Cloned out).

There used to be a video on you tube - sped up footage of a guy turning a slightly overweight girl into a slim'n'curvy supermodel in Photoshop. Very clever...

pix-al

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/07/2008 04:35:15 PM · #15

Here is one - Not the one I have seen before though...

pix-al

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/07/2008 04:44:28 PM · #16

And another...

JaimeVinas

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/07/2008 04:46:25 PM · #17

Never believe what I see in the magazines ever again...

obsidian

Nikon D80

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

01/07/2008 04:49:14 PM · #18

Well, I guess I am showing my age and prejudice - but I prefer Ms Hill in the original photo, where she is who she is and not someone else's wanton creation/interpretation. Keep it real, maybe?

kiwinick

Sony DSLR-A550

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

01/07/2008 04:55:01 PM · #19

you think thats bad. This months Ralph Magazine the AUSSIE/NZ Issue has our local Model/celebrity on the cover. Not only are the images C**P but the have been pp to such an extent trhat I didn't even recognise NICKY WATSON.

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/07/2008 05:43:14 PM · #20

Okay, I had to stop staring at it - her arms started looking like legs.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/07/2008 07:08:21 PM · #21

Very sad that they had to manipulate the photo so severely. They made her look like a stick figure. She's a beautiful woman to begin with, why the radical treatment? They should have their heads examined.

jeger