I wonder how many women are going to run home tonight, throw on a sundress, crouch down on a sofa in front of a mirror in that same position to see if they have back fat spilling out.

What the fuck is that pose she's in anyway? This much retouching wouldn't be neccessary if the photog wasn't actively trying to make her look like she was caught in the middle of an attempt to take a dump off the edge of the sofa.

Oh well, at least they can't mask her atrocious singing.

No in-crowd Photoshop references, Jezebel?

@sventurata: omg i LOATHE photoshop. i should have boned up before this assignment. (heh, 'boned') God i need a new set of references

Is she somehow more country because she didn't wash her feet before the photo shoot? Nashville "street cred"

I do this stuff for a living, not on stills but in motion, and I think that there's maybe a missing photo that would explain some of the arbitrariness of the (nevertheless sexist, ageist, reprehensible) retouching. I'm guessing that the head, face, left arm,and most of the dress came from one photo in the series, and the right arm, back, and maybe some extra hair came from at least one other photo.

Not that it matters. Pick all you want, that's an attractive woman who's been Photoshopped into Stepford territory.

And the finished product is where...?

Nevermind, I found the previous post. *g*

Dispatch from Middle America, photo ed: You're not seeing our clavicles because they're covered in back fat.

@BiscuitDoughJones: Diet Coke...everywhere! Funniest thing I'll read all week.

I know you're using the term "sexist" somewhat facetiously, but "reverse-sexist"? Do you mean to imply that only men are sexist against women mdash; that when women are sexist they are acting like men, but in reverse? Sexist is sexist. Don't assign that as a quality of a particular gender.

I do this for a living, and if you're good, and know the photographer and the pub, no one needs to tell you nothing -- you already know what needs to happen. That's the beauty of retouching, that it happens without explanation.

This appears to be one photo, just heavily warped.

Blaming Bruce Perez for words he either dictated or wrote himself that reveal his obviously misogynist, completely unrealistic expectations for what constitutes feminine beauty, an attitude that just happen to be prevalent in most mass media is reverse sexism? Hardly. I say it's calling him on his (and the industry's) B.S.

I looked at this photograph and saw, guess what? A conventionally beautiful woman who has already made a few alterations in order to embody what is considered (by the industry and the consumers it 'caters' to) in order to be conventionally beautiful (the more obvious ones are hair color and makeup).

After reading Mr. Perez's, erm, colorful commentary, I still saw a beautiful woman.

What this juxtaposition reveals to me is the inherent sexism in popular culture, the obsession of youth+beauty, and the absolute inability of Mr. Perez to see the humanity of the lovely person whose photograph he is so convinced is not good enough for mass consumption.

Personally, I think the masses could stand to consume some realistic beauty standards, and quit consuming the crap Mr. Perez and his cohorts are pushing.

This is important to note: "We don't know Bruce, but here's what we imagine he told the underling charged with this Photoshop task."

Those aren't Mr. Perez's words up there. Moe was being facetious, albeit pretty harsh. This industry is harsh, though, so the faux letter probably isn't far from the truth.

No retouching needed... the original photo brings out her inner MILF-ness

Thanks to Jezebel, we have yet another example of how fucked up magazine airbrushing is. Perhaps at her next concert Faith Hill will dedicate this song to the crack photoshopping team at Redbook: Every part of who I am Is so in love cause what I have is beautiful Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful...

Good Lord people, want to know why they retouch. Look at all the comments about the untouched photo. She has had four children, and toured for how many years now? She isnt twenty. She isn't Carrie Underwood. Why is everyone ripping her apart for how she looks? I want to see another woman who has had four children and done all she has done and look this good. Her feet being dirty? What you think she floated onto the couch? She had to walk across a floor to get there. Don't complain about hollywood putting out these images of photoshoped women if when they show you the real thing you rip them apart. I'm not even a Faith Hill fan, but good grief, she is a person, a mother, a wife. Get a life people and accept that no matter what there job is they are people just like you. The can't and aren't perfect. Don't Demand them to be.

This is nothing more than a modern, more technically evolved form of Cecil B. Demille's and Alfred Hitchcock's, as well as countless other directors and photographers, placing cheesecloth or gauze over the lens for a softer and more youthful appearance for the major female stars of the 30's through the 50's. In my opinion, women have the right to do whatever they want to be more beautiful and we should appreciate it. I do. Faith hill, I would imagine, likes the photo. She posed hoping for the best shot and she got it. Put a frame on it and hang it up. They did a really good job.

The strangest thing is that the untouched picture of Faith Hill shows a lovely woman with a lovely smile. Why do they have to mess with that? The result of their tampering actually makes her look less human and less approachable. I hope that your efforts to show what is being done, the unattainable image that is being promoted, will help all of us women relax about our looks and know that we are just as lovely as anyone else.

Thanks.

We're the same age.. and I never had kids... 'course I'm not married to a 'bone-a-fide" stud either, however, that being said, I could NEVER, NEVER look that good. They didn't need to touch her up.... assholes. Women, who are the majority who read REDBOOK, would have never known the difference. Nor, would have cared. She's beautiful. Leave her alone.

It is funny that they are comparing her to Carrie Underwood. She had a hissy fit when Carrie beat her out of a Grammy, and now this!

It's funny they compared her to Carrie Underwood, the one who she had a hissy-fit over losing a Grammy to!

@BiscuitDoughJones:

Though the pose is kind of weird, I don't think that amount of photoshop was necessary to begin with.

Look at her. Does anyone else think she's just radiant?

BP is just one man among dozens of self-loathing females who wouldn't know real beauty if it bit them in the ass. That being said, I would blame their mindless Creative Director, Tracy Everding who judging by the design of the magazine has about as much taste as a toy manufacturer designing a Barbie box. Let's all read Redbook and be perky and sweet and ignore that a real woman like Faith Hill works her ass off, has a couple of kids and has accomplished more in her life than most. Redbook, why don't you show us celebrities as they really are? Perhaps it would be unique!!!