i thought she looked good in her original pic geez she didnt need that much work done!

I think we should just deal with it. We know all those pics you see in magazines are photoshopped, and there is no reason to think that they aren't. So, the best way to go about it is not to emulate them.

i say BRING IT DOWN!!!!!!!
can i start a rally? lol

holy crap!!!! they even made her ARM thinner!?!?! wtf

Why change her forearm? Why? It was fine in the first photo! and in the second it looks crazy, CRAZY thin!

there are things that just don't look right proportionally in the edited one. weird. thats definately something to keep in mind when i'm looking at the cover of magazines.

I agree w/ you Fit. I think it's really unfortunate that young women (and men) are looking at these touched up pictures thinking that's what they have to look like. Growing up in LA, it's taken me 28 years to finally be comfortable with myself sans the "touch-ups".
Let's bring down the plastic empire!!!

I say it sucks. She was fine the way she was.

she is absolutely gorgeous, and i cannot believe how much they photoshopped her. even her forearm is photoshopped. wow! this is proof that we women really do try to obtain the unobtainable sometimes.

We have to deal with it, b/c it ain't going away. It's so obvious that even the most beautiful women are airbrushed into looking like mannequins. I think we can all tell when things are fake -- and it seems mags like it that way.

We all know that everyone in magazines are photoshoped. But I think it's ridiculous when they make an arm slimmer and make her look like she had botox injections. She beautiful in the before 'photoshoped' pic.

This will also make everyone sick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkdXoGEUVRk

Photoshop is crazy. Faith Hill is, and always will be, GORG!

I think that photoshopping is fine if it makes the image look better, but in this case they just made her look like a freak. Her arm is weird looking, her make up looks trashy and her skin is a weird color after the touch-ups. I understand the need for publications to sell copies. Everyone knows the pics are touched up. They are not meant to be goals or benchmarks for the Everywoman, but something beautiful to look at. I just don't understand why they want to make her look like an alien. That's not beautiful and is an abuse of photoshop in an artistic sense.

Totally needs to stop! No, we don't have to put up with this. Young girls don't know that these are photo shopped, and thus the cycle of bad behaviors in these ladies. Let's show the world how beautiful ALL women are - Faith Hill is gorgeous and should not have been photo shopped.

I cant tell you how many times I have heard a man say to a woman....why can you look like the girls on the magazines- if they can look like that why cant you......So yes women we may all realize that every magazine is photoshopped , but it doesnt mean the men have a clue. And if you try to tell them different they pull out the whole your jealous.....( I know many many men with the attitude )

Lame. This is why little girls grow up to have self-esteem and body issues...

she looked fine in the first photo!
why remove the natural beauty?

because magazines, movies, television...they don't want anyone to think natural is beautiful. natural is a terrible terrible thing. Just like eating is. Or so you would think once seeing all the super thin-air brushed people.

yikes! this is pretty bad, she looks great in the first pic!

it is very sad that photoshop has become the standard.

p.s. maybe we should boycott magazines that use photoshop in this manner?

i am afirad we wouldn't be reading any mags if we did...other than like, the modern fisherman...

haha, modern fisherman... we could still have national geographic? unless they start photoshopping insects to make them more sexually appealing. like, stick a pair of breasts on them.

as an avid user of photoshop (for other people's pictures, not mine haha),I have no problem with this. There's no way Faith Hill would have let them use it if they DIDN'T photshop it. There are very few women with enough confidence to be on the cover of a magazine without being overhauled by the magic that is photoshop. That being said, a lot of regular people use photoshop as well. People want to remember themselves as looking super hot at their wedding/graduation/anniversary/whatever, and photoshop helps them accomplish that. Some people argue that that creates fake memories, but I think whatever makes people happy, works. If you looked at that magazine cover, you would still know that was Faith Hill, so I don't think it's a good deal. Using the photoshopped picture will sell more magazines.

I have a daughter, and it's sad to think she will probably have it WORSE than we have it now... it's only going to progress into something a lot worse for future generations unless we as women make our daughters aware and start speaking out about this... competition between women because of physical appearance often causes barriers in the "woman's movement"... what happened to that anyways? It's like we've gone backwards and for some reason, the only thing we care about is the male opinion of ourselves... there's so much more than physical beauty.

Eh, who needs a clavicle...

I felt the photoshopped cover was useless since she was so pretty in the original! I do think it looked better with the extra arm though

Stars should complain like Kate Winslet did. Maybe if they complained more, normal people's complaints wouldn't seem unreasonable.

I think she looks much more beautiful in the un-touched photo. I have always held the belief that you should speak up if something bothers you. You may not make a difference, but then again you might be able to.

I think we'd all like to Photoshop ourselves in photographs, even if just a little. We'd all like the world to see us as the best version of us, perhaps the way we see ourselves inside.

But we build unhealthy notions about body shape and aging, etc, when we're unknowingly given false representations of what our fav celebs look like. Consciously or not, it forms a skewed image of beauty in our minds and affects how we view ourselves and others.

Faith Hill looks fabulous without the digital touch ups, and whoever at Redbook chose to fabricate her body image made a bad call.

un-fricken believable! I mean, i know they retouch photos. I work in package design and we fake a lot of things (though usually it's glamorizing food not people) but for some reason i still feel shocked to see faith hill not looking so flawless. I think it's great when celebrities to shatter the false images though.

It'll never happen, but I think magazines should stop this practice.

And this coming from Redbook!! Faith is gorgeous as she is, no need to paint a false picture of her or in this case photoshop. Have we heard about Faith's take on this matter? That would be interesting.

I hate it, too. If I were Faith Hill, I'd be pretty upset.

I know that magazines photoshopped their covers, it's no big deal, but in this case, they actually botched her natural beauty!

I can kind of accept if they decided to touch-up her under eye bags, or make their skin look 'flawless' (eh, good make-up and good lightning probably will help a lot), but it's like they put another body below her neck! It doesn't look natural, kind of disproportionated. So I wonder what she thinks about it, because I sure as heck think it's a botched up job and she looks much better as-is!

Do I want magazines to change their practice? Yes and no.

I'm trying to be realistic, I understand that they have a set standard of beauty, and they want their covers to look great that people will want to buy them because they look so good (because unlike those gossip magazines, they capitalize on making the covers to look 'beautiful'--to encourage people to pick them up and marvel and read the cover story, etc).

Yes, because most of these people are already good-looking and don't need the weirdness photoshopping that makes them look ridiculous, unnatural like that.

The only thing i would change in the first picture is the bags under her eyes and that is it!

The rest could have been left alone. She is a beautiful woman and they made her look like a mannequin.

She doesn't even need photoshop. She's one of the most glamorous and regal women in the entertainment idustry. Too much photoshop and you can't even identify the celebrity on the magazines.

Her arm looked like she is anorexsic on the photoshopped picture. Why oh why they think that is more beautiful . Maybe they are people who would just photoshopped their food on the table instead of having it for real :/

They made her arm look ridiculous. I hate this practice!

Wow, her arm and her nose are the most obviously edited parts. But even look at the bones in her chest, it's so rediculous! Completely unnecessary. What a negative, negative message to send out.

haha half her arm is gone

wow they thinned her arm so much and softened the lines on her face, but i agree, the first picture is much more real and genuine. shes gorgeous no matter what.

I don't mind some minor retouching such as some fine lines or blemishes or scars, hell even stretch marks. However, when you thin body parts, then that's where I draw the line. Down with turning actual celebs' bodies into mannequins!!!

I know this is old, but I just saw it today and had to reply to tralalala's comment. I use photoshop daily too, as I am a graphic designer. But I never use it to retouch people to make them look better (or worse for that matter). In fact, I would never retouch my photographs of my wedding or anything else even though I know perfectly well how to do it. My pictures from my wedding are gorgeous because I was glowing and having a great day and that shines through the pictures. That is what I want to remember. In fact my husband and I were looking at them yesterday and he said "man you're so beautiful." If i had retouched those pictures that comment just wouldn't mean the same thing to me.

this is horrible and so annoying!!
plus she looked waaaay preetier in the orginal pic
whats happening to this world?!

She looks much more beautiful and real in the first photo. It sucks that magazines & other media do this, even to the most beautiful of women.

Her smile looks a lot happier in the first pic.

I wonder what was so wrong with the way her arm looks that they had to make it really really small.

If you look at the second picture long enough her arm looks really weird. Almost like a wooden arm or something. I'm glad that she gets bags under her eyes when she smiles too.

It is such a controversy. On one hand it is definitely bad, we all know the reasons behind that. On the other hand, does it inspire us as women?

that's crazy. i just showed my bf that and even he said "that should be put out there more so girls that are trying to be like that know that its not real" or something along those lines.

great points, emmalou.