interesting read about P-shopping magazine covers.

[eeeksNYC]

dunno if I agree about this...

http://jezebel.com/5335022/self-editors-explain-covers-arent-supposed-to-look-realistic?skyline=true&s=x

[shutter_imadness]

I don't agree with her point of view but I do somewhat understand where she's coming from. There have been times when I took a photo of a landscape but had a branch in the way which I'd clone out. Though my example is a bit different than what she did. She directly changed the subject of the photo to look the way she though was optimal even though the message of the photo was how to look your best and feel great about yourself. With my example the subject is not altered (except with a bit of white balance and other small touches), instead the area surrounding the subject is enhanced in a way to emphasize the subject's true beauty.

Interesting read btw. :)

[LeuceDeuce]

Look at the article headers on the front cover.

It is incredibly naive of Ms. Clarkson to believe that her unedited image would grace the cover of a magazine that sells the idea of "skinny is beautiful".

The magazine clearly wanted to capitalize on her current popularity, but her body image is not what the magazine is looking for so they changed it. To even think for a second that magazine covers aren't heavily retouched is quite delusional. Everyone seems to be ok with removing acne, wrinkles and mole hairs, but somehow tucking in her muffin top crossed the line.

More to read: http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/