One of the best ("best" = soul-wrenching!) parts about working on Jezebel is reading what Jezebel readers have to say back. So we were practically drawing straws for the chance to wade through your thoughts on our decision to pay $10,000 so we could run an un-retouched Redbook cover featuring Faith Hill. (Yup, Baby Spice "won" this assignment!) We braced ourselves for who among you would meet us, as Women's Wear Daily did, with contempt and disapproval that we would undermine "one of the few venues where celebrities are spared the warts and all coverage of the tabloid age." But none of you did! Nice ethics, bitches! Anyway, what your observations taught us about anatomy, Victoria Beckham, back fat, and Photoshop, after the jump.



um why does she have so many lines around her eyes shes been rich for like 10 years
my mom is 54 and doesnt have that many wrinkles wtf


They took away half her arm! And gave her Elisha Cuthbert's face shape (and age). And God forbid an almost-40 year old woman has a few lines around her eyes. Wow. Just... wow.



Wow! She DOES have arms! I was wondering how the flock she was holding herself up. And, ya know, she still looks really good...for a human. (As opposed to the Cherry 3000 version on the "finished" cover.)



I really want to kill myself after the thought "Wow. They did a good job."
What the fuck is wrong with me.



I re-touch for a living and to be quiet honest these boys (because it's usually men that re-touch) went liquify happy on her arm.



All I want for Christmas is my own personal photo-shopper.


I feel pretty darn good about myself right now. My arms and backfat look just like Faith Hill's (real) arms and backfat!



for some reason, I cant stop laughing that they even rounded out that wisp of hair on the left side of her face.



What's amazing is 90% of what they did to her body could've been skipped if she just sat up straight. This is fabulous, though. Worth every pen-well, maybe not, but still fabulous.



You'd think they could do something about her roots after going thru so much trouble.



thank you, jezebel! i had heard legends of elizabeth hurley's nickel sized pores and drew barrymore's back fat, but there is nothing like an animated gif to drive it home.



That's it. I'm off to revive Ophelia.


Wow. You could take all the scraps they snipped and make a picture of Nicole Richie.



It's not just her arm - her thigh is about 1/2 the size of the original too. WHY DID THEY DO THAT to her jaw?? Can none of these celebrities put it in a contract that they refuse to be photoshopped into oblivion?? That Dove ad has nothing on this scary jumping comparison.


She looks like the typical overly tanned gone-to-fat desperate-to-look-younger (dressed inappropriately for her age) middle-aged woman who was once unimaginatively hot-ish. In other words, pre-photoshop, she looks a lot like me. Prettier hair though, but yes, thinning; and maybe the camera does add 10 lbs because i think she's quite a bit more of a fatty than me too. Personally, I can never get past the distorted look of her "WHAAATTTTT??!!" into the camera when she was outraged at not being named Country Enertainer of the Year, particularly as she was already taking bows before the name was announced ... and losing to Carrie Underwood who is younger, hotter, and ostensibly more talented. I feel for her (Faith) ... as least my fade into into ignomity is a private undocumented one. But i'm not a sore loser either.


Eh, this isn't so incendiary. Can you get your hands on someone we all collectively hate next time? I for one would love to see Posh looking more Miss Havisham than Fembot.


It's also interesting that she looks more down-to-earth, female-friendly in the untouched photo because her pose in comfortable and open, whereas the touched up version makes her look more come-hither-ly, as if men are buying redbook. Although I wonder if market research says that women respond to sexy pics of women better than friendly pics of women...does anyone know?


I hope someone didn't get fired for this. I worked at a fashion catalog where we had early pictures of a famous model girlfriend in really stupid outfits. I kept thinking of uploading them to the internets but didn't cuz I figured I'd LOSE MY JOB if I was ever found out.


What is more shocking with Faith Hill on Redbook is how they seem to have taken her character away: "when it's her with all lines and beauty marks - she's got character and then suddely she's just another pretty empty painted up doll face," my friend Froglozoid said. And me to reply: "Yeah, it's not the same soul."


Are you kidding? I've worked with the lady and she is a great talent, but like most female stars she is very concerned about her appearance, and undoubtedly had a big say in what pictures would appear on the cover. That doesn't make here a bad person; there is a long history of female stars protecting their publicity photos. This is just the technique of the new century, and I'll bet George Hurrell would approve.


As a artist with a background in anatomy — I think this is priceless. They've given her a severe case of Scoliosis by whittling her back into an hourglass curve! They've also eliminated all the "slow" lines of the body (the concave areas where the body can bend on itself) to eliminate any hint of actual flesh on thiose bones. It's Mannerism at it's best — the artificial trumping the natural.