Just look at this magazine cover of Katy Perry for starters. In the actual magazine cover picture, you can see that she was given a more tan skin color, so she didn't look so pale. The editors also gave her more curves, and made her boobs bigger. Not only that, but they even edited small details like getting rid of her sock, and even making sure that all 5 of her fingers were completely showing and not tucked in. This goes to show how fake magazine covers are, and I think its dumb of people to question their appearance based on what they see on them.I'm not a fan of magazines because to me they are all gossip and celebrity news that I personally couldn't care less about. Who cares if someone is pregnant, or if a famous actor is having an affair. In no way does that affect me. The only magazines that I would find interesting are on music, movies, certain sports, etc. Nothing that deals with celebrity news, but more along the lines of an activity I enjoy doing, or something I actually care about.
You have a really good point about that Rolling Stone cover with Katy Perry. I honestly don't see why anything would need to be retouched with the image on the left. But of course, the media believes that Perry would look more attractive with a tan, glowing complexion. I think it's rather unfair to Katy because she is a naturally gorgeous person, yet the media still isn't satisfied.
ReplyDeleteI didn't even notice the sock until you said something about it. They really did change small inconsequential things. Another thing with this picture is that she is posing on a bed with sun in the windows which could even be taken as far as to say she just woke up.... as if any women in the world look like that rolling out of bed in the morning. I for one wake up with my hair in one big knot and although I may not like to admit it maybe even some drool somewhere next to me, but enough about my problems.
ReplyDelete