14 DAY TRIAL // While some militate for the complete elimination of Photoshop use in magazine pictures, others continue to indulge in the practice of retouching to the point a photo becomes a cartoon – as is the case with the latest Rolling Stone cover.
The cover is dedicated to one of the hottest television series in recent years, “Mad Men,” and features Jon Hamm, Christina Hendricks, January Jones and Elizabeth Moss.
Aside from the fact that how they’re all sitting in the backside of a vehicle seems like quite an uncomfortable position, there’s also the question of how much retouching went into the photo.
As Gawker puts it, the answer is: too much. Moss is missing a foot, while Hamm seems to be missing an entire leg (though it can vaguely be seen underneath). And that’s not really all.
“The exceptionally handsome Hamm looks constipated – but that might be natural. Only Elisabeth Moss looks like she’s enjoying herself,” Gawker writes, after noting that Jones and Hendricks seem too “grim.”
“What’s not natural are the liberties taken in post-production, most visibly with Moss. Of course, the most glaring Photoshop intervention concerns the women’s bodies,” the publication further says.
“Despite the three ladies have different physiques, they’re all rendered quite nearly the same size on the cover of Rolling Stone,” the report argues.
Indeed, as any fan of the show would know, the three actresses are strikingly different in body frame, with Jones being the leaner and Hendricks the most voluptuous.
“For the cover, Moss gets her very own hourglass figure; both she and Jones also get snake-like legs. As a bonus, Moss also gets either a screwy calf, or something akin to a foot,” Gawker further explains.
“Speaking of legs and feet, Hamm’s left leg might be tucked under Hendricks’, or fading slightly into the shadow of the car seat – but there’s not even a suggestion of that here. It would seem, rather, that he has no leg whatsoever, his limb lost in a dark abyss (though yes, his foot is eventually visible),” the report argues.
From this to Roger Sterling’s joke that “the magazine is so cheap, they can’t even afford a whole cover star” is nothing but a step – and Gawker boldly takes it.
See the enlarged picture (attached) for all that’s wrong with the current Rolling Cover, courtesy of Gawker.