The Beauty of Photoshop – Faith Hill
July 20, 2007 by Christina Jones
Filed under Beauty
Check out this shot of Faith Hill on Redbook’s cover this month – and then check out the original shot. Not that Faith isn’t a beautiful woman – she absolutely is – but no amount of diet, exercise, wrinkle cream, plastic surgery and makeup can make you look like Photoshop can make you look. Always be aware of the magic that celebrities have and use. They are normal folks like you and me. 
Photo from Jezebel.com, hat tip to TMZ
This is terrible. Her arms look like sticks! Also, why they made her look like she was in her 20s is beyond me. She’s beautiful as is!
I’m always amazed when I see these before and after pics. They even lightened her hair and put more make-up on her eyes! Nuts.
You know what would be fun? I wouldn’t mind submitting one of my pics for a photo retoucher to fix up. Then at least I know how I could look in my fantasies. haa
Whoa. Thanks so much for this reminder Christina. Yes, Faith is beautiful in both shots, but who wouldn’t love sleek arms and a tight waist like in the “After”? I guess we all could have it with a friendly little retouch.
Now I can see why some of the more natural celebs get unnerved when they see these “Afters”. What a difference.
How do you know they didn’t use Corel Photo-Paint or even the GIMP?
I guess its just me. But i find her more attractive in the before picture.
i havent liked faith since her cma awards fit
I wonder if she got insulted. I would be. What, I don’t look skinny and pretty enough that you had to photoshop me? LOL. She looks beautiful so why mess with perfection? Ayayay. I’ll never understand print media, heh.
Liberty, I for one wouldn’t like stick arms like Ms Hill has in the after shot. She is a very thin woman to begin with (and probably underweight; most celebrities are). To find the need to make her thinner yet is honestly disturbing, and sends a horrible message to every female.
They made her arms thinner, which is stupid because they prolly went “well here arms are fat!” and now turn it into a stick. Her eyes have gotten more makeup, her hair is blonder and looks more fuller, if you notice. she looks thinner and they took away some of her shoulder. so. its like she has a big head in a thin body. i prefer the before waayy better.
I actually think the before picture was better.
I do have to agree the before looks better, there is one change that does look better in the after, but it’s also kind of odd when you see the before and after, but the thing I’m referring to is the added arm to the after pic. With that, it does look kind of odd in the before pic with just seeing a few fingers on her lap and the rest of her arm looks like it is gone. Some of the other little fixes are a little strange, such as taking away some of the material on her dress by her lap and also removing those fingers, removing some skin that was kind of hanging over the dress right under her shoulder blade, changing the darkness of her dress, adding more yellow to her whole body, and also making her look slightly more tanned, cept for her foot, they had to lighten that while the rest of her was darkened and yellowed. Now, not only did they shrink her poor arm and make it look like a stick, they of course had to make it look longer by placing the elbow joint lower down. Now the part I think they really screwed up on is her back/shoulder area, she had a roundness to it on the before, and on the after they flatten that and it just looks horrible on that after pic, her head and neck just don’t look like they belong on her body with it like that. Then if you look even closer, they had to make her skinnier all the way around, they even moved her foot up closer to her body and made it look like her behind and legs were skinnier. You just have to love photoshop, but sometimes they go way to far, and this is a good example of that.
The before picture is better, in my opinion. I don’t understand why they do this kind of stuff! Teenagers look at the magazine and probably think that they have thick arms.
Just stupid and sad
Wow… Thanks for sharing this one. We all need a reminder, now and then, we can’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to compete with photo trickery!
fascinating. how do you find more of these?
It would be wonderful if women’s magazines would stop accepting fixed photos. I think they should stop perpetuating unreasonable images of women.
Faith isn’t 20 anymore and she shouldn’t be portrayed as so. Getting older isn’t a crime. We are a society obsessed with youth. You are beautiful just as you are Faith and shame on Redbook.
I’m a little disconcerted by her missing arm in the untouched shot, but again – why is this necessary? I get being merciful for that unfortunate rash, etc. but this overperfecting is ridiculous and unnecessary – not to mention, promotes an entire culture of unhealthy insecurity.
I don’t understand why the “After” picture was supposed to look better. I think she looks better in the “Before picture”. Somehow, more wholesome, happier, and more real. The After picture makes her eyes looks harder and her arms look very thin. I actually think she looks younger in the Before. She just looks less “Done” and more casual and younger. Um, What was the Improvement?
hello????
of COURSE she looks better in the photoshopped picture
Sure, she looks nice in the first picture,
its night lighting, outfit, make up, hair
but she looks even more visually pleasing in the after
i dont understand how you people can say that it doesnt.
I keep trying to tell my husband that these magazine photos aren’t real. This ought to convince him. I would imagine that almost every major magazine does this to all their models. They might as well just skip the real person and use CG models entirely!
seriously look at the after pic closely her head looks like its not even joined to her bloody body