Pixiq

I don't have any problem with photo editing done on this level. I guess I don't see it as lying anymore than if she'd put on a ridiculous amount of make-up and a better push-up bra.

The changes Rolling Stone made are pretty small compared to a lot of other magazine edits I've seen!

i also don't have any problem with the alterations...what's been done to the image is what is needed to make it a mag cover. they didn't make her thinner or move her breasts or anything substantive.

For me, in this context, editing the image is totally assumed. In our modern image-savvy culture, I think most people understand that magazine images, ads, and most commercial uses are heavily edited.

And I agree with Lynda: this shot in particular isn't nearly as touched as many covers I've seen. I guess that means I'm a bit jaded.

Things like this often lead me to wonder: is it even possible to capture a cover-worthy commercial image straight out of the camera these days?

This is far less retouching than I would have imagined.

The orginal is a little flat (no pun intended) so I like the glow..use it myself on some photos. There was no need for the breast enhancement or the leg thinning and I don;t get the hand thing at all. However, Hollywood is ALL about image.

The orginal is a little flat (no pun intended) so I like the glow..use it myself on some photos. There was no need for the breast enhancement or the leg thinning and I don;t get the hand thing at all. However, Hollywood is ALL about image.

It's a question of full disclosure and being honest regarding on how the photo was taken, so I'm cool with that.

I don't know, I do find it a little troublesome from the photographic pov. As a constructed cover shot, okay, but I have to agree with Hannah above that what they choose to enhance is all sorts of "ists" (sexist, ageist, etc.). Also, I can't help but hear my husband's voice in my head when he finds me fussing at an image in Photoshop: "Take a better photo instead."

Katy Perry is a bad example. She just looks too good to begin with. There are some stars that need far more, and get far more, photoshop work.

Well, I guess I have no philosophical problems with the small "improvements", but I find that I maybe prefer her original "real" shape. The glow/color addition is nice and the more relaxed/natural hand position are an improvement in my opinion, but her breasts and thighs appear naturally beautiful already, so why mess with them to achieve a more Barbie-like look?

I think it's easy to underestimate the amount of retouching that was done. Apart from the obvious - a couple of inches of extra bust, a couple of inches fewer hips (anybody who's ever tried to lose "just a couple of inches off their hips is laughing a hollow laughter right now) and a completely different skin tone, they have also:

- Removed the outline of her left eye socket, making it look like she has no cheek bone
- Removed the shadow created by the way her nose connects to her mouth
- Did away with a small light mark in the right hand corder of her mouth, altering its verisimilitude and tactility
- Obliterated two beauty spots in her cleavage area
- Smoothed the texture of her stomach skin of any lines, so it looks like her bellybutton is painted on
- Glossed over her kneecaps, giving her immobile looking doll-like joints

If I were the photographer I'd be livid that they took the fruits of my labour and changed them to the point where it's hardly possile to tell the difference between this cover and digital art. And this, as people above have said, is a *mild* example of retouching, so.

But here is the real questions: is it the magazines fault they Photoshopped this image or societies fault that they require this Photoshopping to get them interested in the magazine cover?

Magazines will do what they need to to make money. If they decided to not photoshop covers anymore, I think we all know they would lose readers.

As a dad, I know to teach my child that these 'images' are BS.