Revisiting retouching

Yes, I'm writing about retouching again. I think it's worth a second post because the practice is so prevalent and, typically, so extreme.

For instance...look at these much-discussed photos of Britney Spears (for a Candies's advertising campaign) before and after Photoshop:


I can get behind the crotch retouching. And removing the bruises? on her left calf. But slimming her torso, thighs, and calves (which, in my opinion, were better in their more shapely original state) is just too much. Do you agree?


Again, it looks as if she's been unnecessarily slimmed from the neck down. However, I can understand removing the cellulite on Spears's thighs. It's nice to know she's a normal woman (90 to 95 percent of women have cellulite, according to most estimates), but I don't want to see cellulite in an ad. What say you?

I'm not completely against retouching (as my comments have probably indicated). Removing a stray hair here or a zit there (or bruises, or cellulite) is fine with me. But recontouring bodies and facial features (Jessica Simpson claims her nose is often Photoshopped, for example.) doesn't do the public or celebrities any favors.

As a result, many of us end up measuring ourselves against an unrealistic ideal and the celebrity rarely resembles her photos.

Kim Kardashian, a woman with amazing curves, recently posed nude for Harper's Bazaar. The magazine leaked the photo, also unretouched, below:


I luv it! She looks so beautiful.

Perhaps a rebellion against excessive Photoshoppping is underfoot.