Photoshop Insider

Faith Hill Redbook Magazine Retouch Fuss

By Scott on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 12:13 am | updates.

Check out Jezebel.com which looks at the photo retouching work done to a Redbook magazine cover photo of Country Music star Faith Hill. It’s really a very well done retouch, and fairly indicative of the portrait retouching that goes into pretty much every magazine cover shot you see these days, but for some reason, people are making a big fuss, like this isn’t “business as usual” (but believe me–it is).

Some of the retouches were pretty standard fare; they made her look a little thinner overall, trimmed and smoothed her waist on the right side, removed blemishes on her arm, lightened her skin tone, and removed some facial wrinkles.

The more interesting work appears to be done on her arm, which is much thinner and slightly repositioned in the final cover, plus part of a second arm was added behind her (pretty masterfully I might add). This is most easily done using the Liquify filter and its powerful “Pucker” tool (I downloaded the before photo and tried the arm thinning, and waist fixing myself, and both combined took just a few minutes using Liquify, but of course I was working on a very low-res version of the photo).

I used the Healing Brush to remove wrinkles and blemishes, and then a skin softening technique to smooth her skin. I would love to do a quick video tutorial on how to achieve the same final result very quickly, but I don’t have the rights to use her image for the tutorial, so I’ll keep my eye out for something similar).

At one point, my wife and I thought the before photo was from the same shoot, but was not the actual photo used, but if you look at her hair (especially how it appears over her dress area) you realize that it is indeed the same shot).

Anyway, the site Jezebel.com did an in-depth (and sometimes humorous) look at the retouch. Here, they show a large animated version of the cover showing the before and after rotating back and forth, and then here they show a point-by-point annotated look at what was retouched. This is definitely worth a look, and I send my kudos to Jezebel.com for the in-depth coverage, and to Redbook’s retoucher, who I think did a very slick and professional retouch.

Comment form for this post

^#1

My cousin has been doing retouching for major magazines in Chicago since the mid-70’s. At the time, they were working with custom software on a mainframe.Medium to large format images, of course. I learned quickly the signs of a retouch. Scott is right, this practice has been going on for a long time… maybe longer than some of us have been around!

His work in retouching planted the seed that would sprout yeas later as my keen interest in Photoshop.

Sam on July 20th, 2007 at 6:14 am

^#2

Why are you being so breezily oblivious about why there is a “fuss” about this cover? The women at Jezebel are practically screaming their reasons. The fact that retouching like this is ubiquitous simply makes it more troubling. This is not brushing out a few blemishes, it’s changing a 40-year old woman into an undernourished, bizarre space alien who is far less attractive than the real woman.

jay on July 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 am

^#3

From a photoshop user point of view, I love looking at images like this and figuring out how the photoshop work was done and I enjoyed reading your analysis of “the retouch”.

From a normal woman point of view, it’s fairly horrifying to think this work needs to be done at all. To me she looks amazing and much more natural in the before image. This brings us into a whole other world of digital imaging ethics. For now though, I’ll just admire the retouching work…

Jennifer on July 23rd, 2007 at 6:49 am

^#4

I believe that people are making a fuss because this is business as usual, but those of us outside the industry seldom see the raw photo that becomes the retouched image. It’s one thing to know that it happens, but it’s another thing entirely to see how it happens. I can understand how one might be impressed with the technical skill that goes into the finished image–as someone who has no idea how it is done, I find it quite remarkable–but that doesn’t make it any less distressing.

jessica j on July 23rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm

^#5

What do you mean: “but for some reason, people are making a big fuss, like this isn’t “business as usual” ? The problem, Scott, as if you didn’t know, is that some people believe that photographs are accurate depictions of reality. Most of us out here do not analyze every magazine cover in terms of Photoshop. Women, and men, start believing this is what women are supposed to look like. This creates a false standard that no real woman can ever meet. I don’t know if anyone has ever applied an unmeetable standard to you, but it ain’t no fun.

How about credit where credit is due? Many movies on TV are prefaced by disclaimers that state the movie has been edited. Episodes of HBO’s “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos” have been edited to remove parts deemed unsuitable for the stricter standards of other TV networks. People talk about putting asterisks next to the statistics of athletes suspected of steroid use. Let’s put an asterisk on every photograph that’s been altered (which will be every fashion, gossip and news magazine in existence and many others). It could say “photo retouched” which could be code for “this person actually doesn’t look very much like this.” And, why not credit whoever performed the miracle reworking–don’t those geniuses deserve recognition? Credit the program also. You’ll have: “photo of Faith Hill retouched by Norman Nerd using Photoshop”. Norman will have people beating down his door with work and the program will sell more copies. And real people will get a reality check. Everyone wins!

Katherine G. (Goldman) on July 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm

^#6

For a follow up, there re some links on my blog http://blogs.lexar.com/alanhess/

including a link to the Today show video and the retouch by numbers.

Alan Hess on July 23rd, 2007 at 7:00 pm

^#7

The entire beauty industry is terrible. Girls and women are killing themselves to be young and beautiful after viewing media images. To see evidence over and over again that some of these images aren’t even “real” makes me feel even sadder at the state of our society.

Wiley on July 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm

^#8

All of you who didn’t realize retouching is a normal everyday thing need to wake up. If I were going to be on the cover of a magazine, you better believe I would want to be retouched no matter how good I actually looked in person. I don’t think there’s such a thing as a perfect shot. If Faith’s photo had not been retouched, then this whole ordeal would instead be about how bad or old she looks.

Shelley J. on July 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

^#9

Touch up or not, Faith is still one of the most beautiful people to grace the cover of any magazine.

JRL on July 31st, 2007 at 8:58 am

^#10

I have seen Faith Hill, close up, in the grocery store. She has considerable sun damage to her face and neck, which I found surprising. She looks great at 40, but did not grab my attention as being exponentially more beautiful than expected. However, the reduction in her arm and upper torso probably simply offset the extra weight put on by the camera, as she is quite thin.

Touch ups are de rigeur in magazines, which does make the images more appealing and aspirational. However, most people have no idea that it’s done or to what extent, leading to unrealistic expectations for us mere mortals. It has taken me years to realize and admit that both men and women judge one another and themselves based on the unrealistic images in magazines. For anyone, regardless of how beautiful they are, it is difficult to compete with the hyper-real, Photoshop version of beauty we are sold. Perhaps there should be a disclaimer on all retouched photos !

Carmen on July 31st, 2007 at 8:50 pm

^#11

Our world is the way it is because people strive for perfection. In reality, there is no such thing. Because of technology and the capability to “touch up” photographs, people believe people can actually look “that” good. Really, if everyone could see what stars look like before 13 people do their hair and makeup, make them workout everyday and watch every little bit of food put into their mouth, people would realize they are human too. Faith Hill is absolutely beautiful, and 90% of 40 year olds would do anything to look like her. Before the touch-ups….

Kim on August 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm

^#12

It’s unbelievable what you can to do photographs. It’s sad that no one is natural any more. What’s wrong with a few lines and blemishes everyone has them.

Colleen on April 20th, 2008 at 5:09 pm