明星封面的潛規(guī)則

Considering the 1)egregiously 2)heavy-handed state of 3)retouching these days， it would be hard to imagine a Photoshop-free magazine cover. Remember the big 4)Faith Hill before and after Redbook cover? The weird gold 5)Gwyneth Paltrow cover of W? The “Is that really 6)Drew Barrymore” Vogue cover? And the Marie Claire cover of 7)Tina Fey， where she looks great， but not quite like herself...

Speaking of Photoshop in fashion area， the new 8)Jennifer Hudson album cover has been released for her upcoming debut album. We think JHud looks good on the album cover but it does seem that there is some Photoshop involved. Jennifer is a 9)curvaceous woman and we love the fact that she is a natural beauty. But this pic shows her with a size 2 waist that even the strongest 10)corset would not be able to create.When Jennifer Hudson was on the red carpet in London for the “Keep A Child Alive Benefit Ball”， her waist didn’t look as slim. It makes perfect sense to us that the magic of Photoshop was possibly involved.

Here is another case. The ladies in Sex and the City (2008) look like no time has passed since they first began sipping cosmos together on-screen a decade ago. Ah， Hollywood magic. Still， some news outlets are expressing surprise that the actresses may have been digitally enhanced in the 11)promo pictures. U.K. newspapers the Telegraph and Daily Mail both had pieces “exposing” the 12)airbrushed shots. Brits， help me out: Do people not use Photoshop 13)across the pond? Or have we Americans been so conditioned to expect extreme reality 14)makeovers that we no longer notice a digital 15)nip here or computerized tuck there? 16)Heck， even the women’s original Sex and the City photo shoot for the TV show 10 years ago was retouched.

Jezebel.com released an un-retouched Redbook cover image that caused a bit of a 17)stir. It was meant to. But more than 18)courting publicity and 19)traffic， the image they obtained and displayed was meant to show just how far the cover lie extends; that even in and on a women’s magazine meant for a more mature female audience (working moms， etc.) and featuring a more mature female celebrity (career-woman and mother-of-three Faith Hill)， the lies and half-truths continue to be 20)perpetuated. Honestly， it’s sort of heartbreaking that it was Redbook; the magazine has been criticized before for some questionable covers (such as Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts) and， after all， readers of magazines like Redbook worry that they can’t have it all as it is (the great career， the loving husband， the healthy kids， the perfect body). Plus， at this point in the evolution of the 21)celebrity-sartorial complex， who or what exactly is Redbook—or any number of other women’s magazines—kidding with such a female22)forgery? Go to any name-brand， pop culture website and you can see galleries upon galleries of images of celebrities (female and male alike) in their normal， un-retouched， unlit and still-sickeningly-hot states. Why do women’s magazines continue to insist on providing readers just the opposite? Is it stubbornness? The selling of fantasy? Or the selling of other things， i.e. advertising revenue? And if so， is it really necessary to shave 10-15 pounds off a woman and erase exactly what it is (the 23)freckles， the 24)moles， the laugh lines) about her that makes her human and accessible and interesting in order to sell a bit of soap?

Some would say “yes， the half-truths of women’s magazine covers and cover-lines are necessary” (these people usually work on the business sides of such magazines). Others would say “yes” because they know no other way， or are too afraid to say “no” (these people often 25)toil on the editorial sides of such magazines). But as necessary as retouching may seem in order to fill the 26)coffers of corporate 27)behemoths like Procter Gamble， 28)Revlon or Warner Brothers Records， it is not okay for the rest of us—the readers， that is—that this goes on. In a world where lying， deception， and the 29)fudging of facts has become 30)endemic in everything， all the way up to the highest levels of government， this is yet another example of a fraud being 31)perpetrated on the public... and the public， for the most part， is not yet in on the joke. Magazine-retouching may not be a lie 32)on par with， you know， “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction，” but in a world where girls as young as eight are going on the 33)South Beach Diet， teenagers are getting breast 34)implants as graduation gifts， professional women are almost required to 35)fetishize handbags， and everyone is spending way too much time figuring out how to pose in a way that will look as good as that friend with the really popular MySpace profile， it’s wrong.

Yet some people still insist that retouching magazine covers presents no problems. “Faith is beautiful in both shots. But who wouldn’t love 36)sleek arms and a tight waist like in the ‘After’ shot?” one Jezbel.com reader said. The question remains: When you have to make these women look “better” to sell your product， what standard of beauty do you have?

這個年頭，大刀闊斧修描圖片的風(fēng)氣大行其道，你已經(jīng)很難想像有哪個雜志封面是沒有經(jīng)過圖像處理的了。還記得轟動一時，登上時尚雜志Redbook封面的“大變身”菲絲·希爾照片嗎？時裝雜志W(wǎng)封面上一頭金發(fā)但看上去怪怪的格溫妮絲·帕特洛呢？時裝雜志Vogue一期讓人不禁發(fā)問“那真的是德魯·巴里摩爾嗎”的封面，記得吧？還有時尚雜志Marie Claire封面上的蒂娜·費，封面上的她看起來棒極了，可就是不太像她本人……

說到時尚界的PS風(fēng)氣，不能不提的是詹妮弗·哈德森將要發(fā)行的專輯封面照已經(jīng)發(fā)布出來，我們覺得專輯封面上的詹妮弗·哈德森看起來不錯，但的確像有PS加工的痕跡。詹妮弗·哈德森天生體態(tài)豐腴，我們喜歡那種她未經(jīng)人工雕琢的美。但專輯封面所見，她那2號小蠻腰就是再厲害的緊身束胸衣也沒辦法做到的。在倫敦“拯救一個孩子的生命”慈善舞會的紅地毯入場禮上，詹妮弗·哈德森的腰看上去可沒這么細(xì)。在我們看來，PS的魔棒的確有可能起了作用。

還有另一個例子，從我們第一次在屏幕上看著電視《欲望都市》中的幾個都市女性啜飲cosmos（編者注：一種雞尾酒）至今已經(jīng)十年了，可看看2008年電影版的《欲望都市》，時光似乎定格在了十年前。啊，那是好萊塢的魔法。然而，一些新聞媒體對這幾位演員的宣傳照片有經(jīng)加工美化之嫌表示驚詫。英國報紙《每日電訊報》和《每日郵報》都刊登了文章，“揭露”了這些被潤色過的照片。親愛的英國人啊，請告訴我：難道大洋彼岸的你們就不用電腦圖像處理軟件嗎？