15. Russian Glamour, June 2009
Beyoncé's skin looked digitally darkened on the cover of Russian Glamour — and the editors had a guide! A magazine called Joy used the same shot in December 2007. Was something lost in translation? Save your "black Russian" jokes until the end.

14. L'Oreal, August 2008
Beyoncé's skin seemed very light in ads for Feria haircolor. One theory: she was washed out by the strong lighting usually used in shooting hair.

13. Vogue, November 2009
The cast of Nine is chock-full of gorgeous women, but this shot is a mindscramble of random rays of sunlight in hair and dresses with edges so sharp they look like they're for paper dolls. As I wrote in October: "I'm guessing [Annie] Leibovitz shot them each separately and then did a composite, but when you have a person who doesn't cast a shadow on the lady next to her, then that person is a vampire." Poor Kate Hudson looks like she was slapped on as an afterthought.

12. Complex, April/May 2009
Kim Kardashian's waist was cinched, her thighs were slimmed, her skin skin smoothed out and her hairline was cleaned up. Plus, her head appears to be a different shape in the "after" image. Who would have thought a skull could be made "sexier"?

11. Self, September 2009
Kelly Clarkson's "Total Body Confidence" came from digitally slimming her waist and behind. Two Self editors explained that the cover: "is not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best."

10. King Arthur poster, 2004
Movie marketers felt they must, they must, they must increase the bust. Ironically, Keira Knightley told the Guardian that she lost her chest, doing archery and preparing for the role:

To fight, convincingly, shoulder to shoulder, she had to do that thing that is so de rigueur, which is totally to change your body shape. "I was about three times the size I am now. It worried me, but it was cool, it was a body that was doing what it should do. I haven't got a clue because I don't weigh myself, but it was all muscle and I was big. My neck disappeared. My chest flattened even more. It wasn't the most feminine thing in the world, but it worked for the part, because there was strength there, and it was needed."

Of course, Hollywood can't imagine a world in which people would see a movie starring an athletic, flat-chested woman. So a digital boob job followed.

9. Redbook, July 2007
The crazy thing about the Faith Hill Redbook cover is not that it was Photoshopped — it's that this is the standard amount of digital altering that goes into a cover. Unlike some true Photoshop disasters, there are no alarming mistakes here to tip you off. That makes it easy to accept the retouched image without even blinking. Faith Hill is a beautiful woman. But she needed 11 different kinds of alterations before she could be on the cover of Redbook. What a world.

8. Campari calendar, 2008
Jessica Alba: Just another woman whose real body wasn't good enough. In this case, her waist needed to be nipped in so she could shill liquor.

7. Vogue, May 2008
RoboGwyneth looks like a robot, or an alien, depending on whom you ask. One thing is for sure: Her head and neck are not in the same space-time continuum.

6. Redbook, June 2003
Jennifer Aniston's head was placed on to Jennifer Aniston's body — from another photo shoot. At the time, her publicist, Steven Huvane, said: "It's a combination of three pictures. If you're going to do it, then at least match her head up to her body, and make the neck look like it belongs to her. I still can't figure out which exact picture the face came from." A Redbook spokeswoman downplayed the changes: "The only things that were altered in the cover photo were the color of her shirt and the length of her hair, very slightly, in order to reflect her current length."

The neck does look alarmingly unreal, and her head and waist are out of sync somehow. Angelina is surely to blame.

5.Redbook, July 2003
The month after the Aniston debacle, Redbook was at it again: According to USA Today, "[Julia's] head comes from a paparazzi shot taken at the 2002 People's Choice awards. Her body, meanwhile, is from the Notting Hill movie premiere [in 1999]." Julia's publicist, Marcy Engelman, said, at the time: "It's a shame they didn't use the body that went with the head, because it was a great Giorgio Armani pantsuit (that she wore to the People's Choice awards)."

4. Newsweek, March 2005
The editors used Martha's head and a model's body, because Ms. Stewart was still in jail when the issue was being put together. It wasn't supposed to be a photograph, anyway, it was art: "The piece that we commissioned was intended to show Martha as she would be, not necessarily as she is,'' Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor at Newsweek, told The New York Times. Staley acknowledged that the cover carried a disclaimer: ''In this case, we identified this piece as a photo illustration." As Martha would say, it's a "good thing" you did.

3. Seventeen, May 2003
Think about all the Buffy plots which could have been orchestrated around Sarah Michelle Gellar's weird wrist appendage over there on the left, if her arm actually looked like that.

2. GQ, February 2003.
Some people saw Titanic over and over again — but they never saw those legs, on the left. Kate Winslet was pissed about being trimmed down on this cover, saying:

"The retouching is excessive. I do not look like that and more importantly I don't desire to look like that. I actually have a Polaroid that the photographer gave me on the day of the shoot… I can tell you they've reduced the size of my legs by about a third. For my money it looks pretty good the way it was taken."

1. Ralph Lauren Blue Label ad, October 2009
In which model Filippa Hamilton was turned into a string of spaghetti.

According to a New York Times Magazine article by Sara Corbett, the psychoanalyst Jung "got lost in the soup of his own psyche" when he was 38. He said he was "menaced by a psychosis" and that visions were coming at him in an "incessant stream." "In order to grasp the fantasies which were stirring in me ‘underground,'" he wrote, "I knew that I had to let myself plummet down into them." His method of "plummeting" was to write these fantasies down in what is now called his Red Book, a volume full of cramped text and intricate paintings that his family has guarded closely until recently. Now it has been translated into English, and will be published in October.

For Jungians, says translator Sonu Shamdasani, the publication will be a huge milestone. But, Corbett asks, "What about the rest of us?" It's a good question. Corbett notes that Jung has come under fire for anti-Semitic and paternalistic ideas, and his brand of analysis — which takes about five years and focuses on "self-discovery and wholeness" rather than diagnosis and treatment — isn't exactly in vogue in the HMO age. Some people champion analysis as an antidote to supposedly cold, results-based treatments like SSRIs and cognitive behavioral therapy (Lisa Appignanesi, author of Mad, Bad, & Sad, appears to be a qualified supporter of analysis). But analyst Stephen Martin likens Jungianism to a religion, and it can seem like a pretty hierarchical one, in which you bring your psyche to an analyst and he tells you how to interpret it.

I once had a therapist who followed Jungian principles, and while I learned some interesting things from him, I definitely felt like he was telling me what to think about my brain. I got more and more weirded out by the secret violent impulses he claimed I had, and by his focus on my dreams — a big part of Jungianism. The last straw was when he told me not to tell anyone else about any dreams before I told him. I went back to cognitive-behavioral therapy, where at least I felt like I was in charge.

But there's more to Jung than what I experienced. Corbett writes,

The central premise of [the Red Book] was that Jung had become disillusioned with scientific rationalism - what he called "the spirit of the times" - and over the course of many quixotic encounters with his own soul and with other inner figures, he comes to know and appreciate "the spirit of the depths," a field that makes room for magic, coincidence and the mythological metaphors delivered by dreams.

It's true that cognitive therapy, with its emphasis on homework and tasks, can sometimes seem to deny the complexities of the brain. And sometimes distorted "cognitions" can be valuable in ways that a traditional therapeutic setting doesn't really allow for. I still haven't found a way to reconcile the fact that contemporary psychotherapy helps me and so many other people with the fact that it sometimes seems to oversimplify human life, to divide everything into healthy and unhealthy and banish certain interesting, if painful, thoughts. I'm not sure what "making room for magic, coincidence and the mythological metaphors delivered by dreams" would look like, and frankly I tend to regard dream analysis — especially when it claims to tap into a "collective unconscious" — as bullshit. But I do think that knowing and appreciating your personal "depths," even if they are unhealthy, might be better than denying them. In the Red Book, says Shamdasani, "The basic message he's sending is ‘Value your inner life.'" It's a simple message, but one that might do a lot of good.

The Holy Grail Of The Unconscious [NYT]

Nowhere in the magazine's new interview with the country singer did Redbook editors address the Photoshopping scandal from almost two years ago; the writer, Lori Berger, did, however, mention that the magazine's new cover shoots involved "20 total hours of primping, painting, pinning, and plucking" and that the "results are extraordinary."

Oh, and there was this hard-hitting question:

What do you try to teach your girls about beauty so a bad hair day doesn't become a crisis?

Hill's answer was, well, illuminating.

Mostly, we have tried to lay the foundation for the girls to have a sense of self-worth that goes way beyond anything that's not real or achievable.

Anyway, here's Redbook's "original" shot of Faith as Brigitte Bardot.

No mention was made of Bardot's own controversy, which includes being charged and fined for "inciting racial hatred" stemming from remarks she made about Muslims. (She's also criticized the modern-day gay man. She likes them retro-y.) Here's our version, with cover lines:

The Many Faces of Faith Hill [Redbook]
Faith Hill Plays Dress Up as 3 Iconic Blondes [Redbook]
Earlier: Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God

These, incidentally, are the top ten most trafficked posts of the year — not our favorites — and some of them, you'll notice are from last year. The winners in ascending order, and links to the original posts, directly below.


10. Animals and amore:
Adorable Dog Adopts Orphaned Baby Bunnies


9. Extreme breastfeeding:
At What Age Is A Kid Too Old To Breastfeed?


8. Bad fashion:
American Apparel Will Make You Look Like A Fat Hooker


7. Sex and the Shitty:
Extended Sex And The City Trailer: Carrie Gets Jilted! (LOL)


6. Online dating:
New Rule: When 'Dating' Online, Add 20 Years, 100 Lbs. To Your Partner's Profile


5. Reality television :
The Real Housewives Of Atlanta: We Think We Know Who Kim's "Big Papa" Is


4. Making Late-Night Comedy Out of Economic Tragedy:
Wanda Sykes Campaigns For Cabinet Position On Last Night's Leno


3. Ladymag Liars:
The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill 'Hot'


2. The election of Barack Obama:
Donna Brazile Is Not Going To The Back Of The Bus


1. Celebrity Photoshopping :
Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God

Oh, and then there was that story about Jezebel.

Obviously, the nonchalant tone of that last sentence is total bullshit: I — and most of the other staffers, I believe — spent the majority of the weekend reading the Times piece, then reading it again, and again, and again, all in an effort to process how we felt about it. (And, of course, our appearances. I was horrified by vast amount of forehead on display; Tracie thought she looked like a drunk; Dodai marveled at her abundant cleavage; Jessica disdained her lack of it.) My reaction to the story was one of amusement and disappointment, feelings that did not change even on my fifth or sixth reading, although I admit they were much-amplified after I got a look at the crazy-ass commenting thread about the story that sprung up on Gawker on Saturday; all I have to say about that right now is Jesus Christ.

There were some amusing moments in the story, like writer Lauren Lipton's acknowledgment of the alcohol-soaked truce between Moe Tkacik and her sometime-critic, SinisterRouge, and the confirmation of a rumor I'd heard regarding a group of disparate, far-flung, longtime commenters and a pilgrimage they took to Dollywood earlier this year. (Also: Redbook editor Stacy Morrison's defensive-sounding intimation that only the impressionable, "fun"-loving youngsters on the lowest rungs of her magazine's editorial masthead deign to visit Jezebel. Guess she's still mad about that Faith Hill Photoshop controversy.) And despite my disagreement that a Jezebel name-check on the website for Gossip Girl has suddenly led to an influx of younger, more (ahem) immature readers — and my disbelief that the Times compared our traffic to that of iVillage, of all things — on the whole, I felt the piece was fun and more than fair to us. (One quibble: We post from 9am to 7pm, not 10am to 7pm.)

But it wasn't fair to the readers. Why? Because: Problems between editors and commenters and between commenters themselves are not specific to this blog — or any Gawker Media site for that matter — and the tensions in the comment threads are a natural side-effect of our surprisingly speedy growth. Because: At least from my somewhat ignorant vantage point, there is simply no evidence of any group of commenters referring to themselves as "cool kids" in any thing but a joking manner. And most importantly, because: Jezebel readers are funnier, more vibrant, opinionated, impassioned, whip-smart — and yes, infuriating —than the Times made them out to be. (Why the paper chose to showcase an unremarkable, mildly-tense exchange within the thread of an Angelina Jolie "Snap Judgment" instead of contributions from readers on, say, "Crappy Hour" or something equally-loaded, such as this post, is beyond me.) Basically I just wish that the commenters had taken center stage a bit more. They — you — deserved it. Because despite all the thoughtful, opinionated, unique work done by Dodai, Moe, Tracie, Jessica, Jennifer and Maria, in the comment threads on our blog you can find sidesplitting humor, impassioned disagreement, emotion-laden provocations, expert anecdotes, and a variety of voices that inspire as much, if not more, than they annoy.

In fact, I can guarantee that you will.

Not On Our Blog You Won't [NY Times]

Which is why even Jezebel has to take money from marketers such as American Apparel — the pervy, hipster brand that's all about worshipping dewy, cellulite-free, half-naked youths..

Um, Simon, see an optometrist! American Apparel ads are the only reason we knew hipsters got cellulite. And stretch marks! And zits. JUST LIKE US. And Faith Hill. And third-world sweatshop workers. Which brings us to your conclusion, which is true if you substitute "urbanites who make more than $500,000 a year" for "Americans."

But the larger, really obvious truth here is that fewer and fewer Americans — females especially, but males, too — have the strength of character to age gracefully or entirely honestly.

Hey, Would You Want Your Back Fat On The Cover Of Redbook [Ad Age]

Until now, regulators have voiced few objections to the use of cosmetic fakery in advertisements, and the techniques used by L'Oréal are standard in the industry.

'Every actress in Hollywood has got eyelash extensions,' one source in the ad industry said. 'The thought that any model would appear on TV without cosmetic enhancement is rubbish.'

Adverstising Watchdog In A Flutter Over L'Oreal's Fake Eyelashes [Times of London]
Related: Losing Faith [WWD, 2nd item]

According to a new study just released in the U.K., of 70,000 school-age children, 40% of 14-to-15-year old girls admitted they aren't eating breakfast and 25% of those girls are also not eating lunch because over 50% of them listed their appearance as their number one concern in life.

Dr David Regis, research manager at the SHEU, said in-depth interviews with participants suggested media images of superslim celebrities and models such as Victoria Beckham, Kate Moss and Nicole Richie fuelled the obsession with weight. "Dissatisfaction with their bodies often seems to originate from, or is certainly accentuated by, celebrity culture and the print media and magazines," he said.

Starvation diet of schoolgirls aiming for supermodel size [Daily Mail UK]
Related: Memo To Women's Magazine Editors: White Women Hate Themselves After Reading Your Magazines
That Faith Hill Photo Wasn't Actually A Photo, 'Redbook' Editor Explains

Earlier:
Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing But Maybe God
The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill 'Hot
The 'Redbook' You Should Have Seen On Newsstands
Faith Hill's 'Redbook' Photoshop Chop: Why We're Pissed

ABC News:

Jezebel.com takes a look at a Redbook cover shoot of Faith Hill — before and after the photoshopping. It will make you gasp.

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.

Check out that picture of Faith Hill and she's lookin' pretty darn fine for a millionaire mom of three who's about to turn the big 4-0. She's even on the cover of Redbook this month! Anddddd that's where her trouble begins. Jezebel got their hands on the original version of Faith's cover photo prior to it being touched up with the magical tools that only magazines and wizards possess, and holy Hollywood standards are the results horrifying. The more you look at the touched up cover picture, the more you'll wonder why we as a society like our celebs to look like straight-up aliens. If the difference in her arm's shape and size isn't enough to freak you out, check out her eyes, her back, her posture and, oh, her disappearing hand. Faith was way better looking before she went under the digital knife, crow's feet and all.

This happened on the cover of Redbook. Not Playboy or Vogue or even Cosmopolitan, but Redbook, which is supposedly geared to more mature female readers. The fact that this same July cover includes lead stories such as "The new skinny pills — yes, they work!" and "Look and feel your hottest" only underlies the utterly depressing and spooky state of the American medium.... I'm appalled at what Redbook has done to Faith Hill, and everyone else should be, too, and this includes men, because most of you have wives or moms or girlfriends or sisters, or especially young daughters, the latter of whom are increasingly doomed to be swept away by our culture's perfection-obsessed tsunami.

Because there's no way a woman almost 40 years old can have wrinkles and be on the cover of a magazine ... And be sure to also read this great analysis of why it matters.

The cover of this month's Redbook has a stunning photo of country megastar Faith Hill. Well, someone resembling Faith Hill! Thanks to our friends at jezebel.com, who dug up the original photo, TMZ readers can have a look at Faith in all her real glory, and see how she was "cleaned up" for her cover. Through the miracle of Photoshop, they gave 39-year-old Faith a body like 24-year-old Carrie Underwood! For a mother of three just a few months shy of 40 with a non-stop schedule, the real Faith looks amazing!

If someone like Faith Hill is not good enough as is to be on the cover of a woman's magazine, than doesn't it make you question why some of us are killing ourselves trying to look celebrities who don't even look like themselves. It also sends the message that no matter how beautiful you are, you're still not perfect enough. Hmmmm?

As individual women, it can be easy to wonder why we fall into the trap of trying to live up to an unattainable standard. It's something we absorb on an almost subconscious level. Deconstructing this month's Redbook magazine cover shows us just how manufactured the images of beauty we see really are. I didn't think twice about the cover image of country singer and actress Faith Hill when I first saw it. But an untouched original photo obtained by Jezebel shows just how much "digital magic" even a certified star needs to be ready for her close-up....am at a loss for ways to combat the media's standards of beauty. But seeing the curtains of digital magic pulled back to reveal reality can remind each of us to give ourselves a break when we look in the mirror.

To say that magazines contribute to an unattainable ideal is to undersell the point: The art directors and retouchers of the world get paid to create women who literally do not exist and never could. It's worse than the old Women's Studies 101 complaints about Barbie's proportions; everyone already knows Barbie isn't real. The more insidious — and therefore more dangerous — manipulation occurs when they take away the natural crook of a woman's arm or tighten up her droopy earlobe. Really: They digitally adjusted her earlobe!...And to add verbal insult to visual injury, the cover line next to Faith Hill's head screams, "The New Skinny Pills: Yes, They Work!" To my knowledge, science has not yet yielded a pill that can create a 1-inch elbow.

Have Redbook gone a bit too far with this one? Jezebel have a wizzy animated picture so you can see all the details. So what's with the arms? Seriously? Is this what Redbook readers must aspire to? Bone replacement anyone?

Why Don't Women Feel Beautiful? Jezebel.com has uncovered the Photoshopping of Faith Hill committed by Redbook Magazine. It should make every woman mad....No wonder regular women feel bad about themselves - none of us walks around with a photoshop editor fixing our acne and wrinkles or making our actual back disappear - yet, we are told we can expect to look like this picture. NO ONE LOOKS LIKE THIS PICTURE - not even Faith Hill and it's a picture of Faith Hill!

Basically, Redbook has taken a majorly attractive 39-year-old woman and digitally airbrushed her back into some indetermine 20-something age, erasing eye wrinkles, thinning out arms and straightening out her back. The end result looks great; it's just doesn't look like what Faith Hill actually looks like. What should be done about stuff like this? Not much, I suppose; I don't see how, say, outlawing the Photoshopping of celebrity covers on women's magazines would much of anything useful, even if it were constitutionally possible, which it isn't. But what I think that such extensive Photoshopping indicates is a tacit admission by women's magazines that the image they're trying to promote — that they're trying to get their readers to buy and live — is absolutely unobtainable.

Faith Hill is a beautiful, tall, elegant woman, but even she needed to have her imperfections airbrushed out in order to be beautiful enough to grace the cover of Redbook....Why the facade? Why do we accept this? Why do continue you believe this to be true?...It's all part of the game, and they gotcha. I guarantee you will walk past a newstand in the next 24 hours, compare yourself to the covermodel, and think about what you can do to measure up. The fashion industry is demented. From today forward, they can kiss my ass.

Earlier: Here's Our Winner! Redbook Shatters Our Faith In, Well, Maybe Not Publishing But God
Faith Hill's Photoshop Chop: Why We're Pissed

Using the latest technology, experts at website PlanetHiltron.com - which lets the public poke fun at celebrities - have taken genetic traits from the families of the world's biggest A-listers and transported them into a parallel universe where they are untouched by fame.

Genetic traits? How exactly does that work? Did someone take a sample of Aniston's DNA and discover that she's in reality supposed to be a size 16? Whatever. There are some amazing goodies to be had on the PlanetHiltron site, like an amazing Jessica Simpson and what may well be the best Ann Coulter ever.
A-List Stars Get A 'Normal' Makeover... And The Results Are Shocking [DailyMail]
Planet Hiltron]
Earlier: Here's Our Winner: Redbook Shatters Our Faith In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God