Jessica Simpson on Lucky Mag: terrible Photoshop, or refreshingly curvy?

lucky1

Various sites are already claiming that Jessica Simpson was Photoshopped to look slimmer on this Lucky Magazine September cover. I think it’s probably an interesting story, especially given that her profile excerpt includes her thoughts on body image, and obsessing on “looking like the perfect Barbie type, and that’s not always what’s beautiful.” Now, I’m not saying that this photo of Jessica wasn’t ‘Shopped. It was, totally. But it could have been WAY worse. It’s nice to see someone with serious curves on a September cover, even if it’s only for budget Lucky Mag. And I really don’t think they ‘Shopped her body that much – the most glaring work I see is on her neck. Jessica doesn’t have this long, slender neck in real life, so they did some work there. Here’s the excerpt from the mag:

Jessica Simpson has undergone a noteworthy personal style evolution, inspired, she says, by coming to terms with some serious body issues over the course of the last year. She stopped fighting her hourglass silhouette, for instance, after realizing that “we all obsess over looking like the perfect Barbie type, and that’s not always what’s beautiful. It’s about making peace with yourself.”

This sea change came out of her globe-spanning journey for her VH1 show, The Price of Beauty—a trip that also provided the tools to diversify her wardrobe. “I encountered such vibrant colors,” says Simpson, recalling shopping excursions that yielded ethnic accessories way out of her casual-pretty comfort zone: ornate Indian bangles, leather bags from North Africa. “Morocco was a huge influence on me when it comes to jewelry and fashion,” she says. “You can’t help but want to buy caftans when you’re there!”

[From Lucky Magazine]

I agree, it is about “making peace with yourself”. I don’t know about you ladies, but I hit the wall at some point in mid-twenties, and I stopped giving a sh-t if I fit into my goal size. I started taking better care of myself, eating better and drinking more water, and beyond that, I just stopped caring and made peace with my curvy body type (which is a lot like Jessica’s, only my ass is bigger).

Okay, now that I’ve defended her, I have to hate on Lucky Mag for this terrible ‘Shop job on this one photo – this is not Jessica’s real body, at all. I really think they just put Jess’s head on another model’s body!

lucky2

Lucky cover courtesy of HuffPo.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

46 Responses to “Jessica Simpson on Lucky Mag: terrible Photoshop, or refreshingly curvy?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. electric says:

    I don’t see any serious curves in these pics. she looks tiny

  2. meme says:

    What magazine photos (not including tabloids) AREN’T photoshopped? None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

  3. denise says:

    That is clearly not her body.

  4. GatsbyGal says:

    She hasn’t been this thin, like…EVER. The girl has an ass!

  5. lisa says:

    it’s her body, just with a neck elongated and head enlarged. if they’d kept her body proportionate you would have recognized her better.

  6. LolaBella says:

    That is clearly not Jessica’s body in the cover pic either. They took her head and just put it onto a slender model.

    Jessica has been noticeably heavier for the past few months, so if these pics were genuine they would have to have been taken a long time ago.

    I’m tired of these magazines and celebs spouting ‘love your body’ ‘embrace your curves’ and then either Photochopping the image to all hell to make the celeb impossibly skinny or switching the model completely.

  7. lucy2 says:

    If it is her body, then they de-boobed her.

  8. oh-bb says:

    Neither pic looks ANYTHING like Jessica Simpson.

  9. LolaBella says:

    @meme: Perhaps Mad Magazine? I am sure that Alfred E. Neuman will not stand for it! :-)

  10. aenflex says:

    looks to me like the slimmed her hips/thighs incredibly

  11. Kayla says:

    Jessica’s a pretty girl, but these pictures are crazy. It looks like Willy Wonka put her in the taffy puller

  12. zendiggity says:

    That is a laughable photo-shop job. Her waist is more than double that size. I think she’s been getting bigger in the past year in all the pics Ive seen.
    I think its dumb when mags p-shop pics to that extreme when the ‘celeb’s’ real pics are plastered all over the place and they clearly do NOT look like that.

  13. a says:

    she looks like a ghost…a thin, wavy and shapeless wisp. they need to fire their graphics dept.

  14. hanh says:

    What curves? She looks like the stretched her body thinner.

  15. DetRiotgirl says:

    Her legs look like they took a few inches off in that cover shot.

  16. kiki says:

    REFRESHINGLY CURVY !!! thank you jessica

  17. melinda says:

    I also vote that isn’t her body.

  18. mojoman says:

    whoa, that’s messed up dude! whatever happened to her hips (in the first pic)? she looks like a bobble head!

  19. guesty says:

    whoever shopped these pics should be fired. awful. the cover is the only pic halfway decent. so spot on about the neck. ha.

  20. Richie says:

    Whoa!!!! this ain’t her body!! no way!!!!

  21. Jover says:

    Agree Lolabella total hypocrisy of course JS has to talk fatuously about loving her body – she’s not smart enough to talk about anything else. Was no other real model available for some real fashion photography or real singer/actress with talent and intelligence available that this mag has to bottom troll for an amoeba brain no talent like JS. I guess this is her new “career” – grinning stupidly on awful photoshopped mag covers.

  22. Steph says:

    Cover isn’t horrible and I agree could be much much worse, but that second pic!? Her waist is about the same width as her head. BAD, BAD shop job.

  23. RHONYC says:

    hey, jess loves her some southern fried chicken. who doesn’t?

    listen, the girl looks good and still has that ‘fresh as a daisy’ look about her from like 12 years ago.

    she looks like a college co-ed and is hittin’ the big 3-0.

    after all of her man drama, that’s quite an accomplishment.

    homegirl don’t wear the stress on her face…ya can’t be mad at that.

    hee-haw! :-)

  24. bellaluna says:

    In the cover pic, she’s missing her boobs and (I think) some of her stomach and waist. That second pic; now that’s an injustice to all things curvy, healthy, and Photochop (typo, and it stays) as far as I’m concerned.

    @ Lolabella – I agree. I’m also tired of hearing the “I’m healthy, not fat; and I don’t care that I’m heavier than what’s considered ‘normal’ in the industry” and then hearing said person went on such-and-such diet and they are now “so much healthier and happier” with themselves. To me, that’s the ultimate in hypocrisy when it comes to body image!

  25. Roma says:

    Does anyone watch Entourage? She was on last week’s episode and she was looking pretty tiny… I think she has been slimming down. That being said, yes, still photoshopped.

  26. Saor says:

    In the cover picture, shouldn’t her left hand be resting against her leg while her thumb is in the pocket? Instead it’s weirdly pointing right down to make a 90 degree angle. The white gap in between is an indication of how much they cut off her thighs anyway.

  27. Sumodo1 says:

    An atrocity. Photoshop has to end, but it won’t. People, trust your better judgment. If somebody’s torso looks to long, it’s photoshop. If your fave star suddenly looks like a giraffe, it’s photoshop.

    I used it when I was a newspaper editor, but just to crop newspaper photos.

    This ridiculousness is over the limit.

    The first amendment probably covers photoshopping, so this means magazines can’t be required to disclose photoshopped pictures.

    Reader beware.

  28. Nanea says:

    Awful photoshoppery of her body aside, her face doesn’t look real either in both pics, it’s strangely distorted.

  29. Novaraen says:

    Totally photoshopped. Especially the second photo in the green jacket. It looks like they stretched the photo…girlfriend normally has a shorter waist than that.

  30. Sans says:

    She needs to beat it. She has no career, so why on a mag cover. Enjoy your clothing line money and disappear. It’s crazy these wannabes don’t get that maybe if they disappear for a yr or two, they can better their craft and come back with something worth seeing. Not going away and being tedious isn’t working. If the people around you aren’t improving your career firing them.

    You can love your body as it is and say it’s healthy and work to improve it. May love whatever as it is, but work to improve it. Not hypocrisy, it’s just not letting something go to hell, like your body.

  31. C-DUB says:

    Why are you talking bad about Lucky? I love that magazine!

  32. Zelda says:

    Her face always looks pained these days

  33. BethL says:

    I don’t understand why this is news. It’s not like it’s horrible photoshopping like the Sex and the City posters. They only made her look thinner. It would be newsworthy if the photos weren’t shopped. Actually the second photo is insane. I don’t think even Victoria Beckham or AnnaLynn McCord is that thin.

  34. Persistent Cat says:

    Let me throw this thought out:
    She’s definitely Photoshopped as ALL magazine covers are but she’s wearing clothes we never see her in so maybe that’s why she looks different. Just a thought.

    @RHONYC, she’s had work done on her face so I don’t think her looking like a college student (I find the term co-ed demeaning) means anything.

    I love Lucky too but it has been really budget lately. The Canadian version (LouLou) is a million times better because the stuff in it is affordable.

  35. Angie says:

    they even smoothed her ‘butt chin” (hate that term for it but don’t know what else to call it! the line in the middle of her chin that is very prominent, everywhere but here.) Not cool!

  36. Camille says:

    That is one very awkward looking picture of her on the cover, wth?!
    I like the cover outfit, just not on her. The fuller faced look doesn’t look good on her either. Poor dumb thing.

  37. Isa says:

    She did used to be tiny back during a few seasons of the Newlyweds, but she hasn’t been that small in a long time.

    These pictures are weird. On the cover, her hips are too small for her body. One of her breasts looks flattened out.
    On the last picture her face is too big for “her” body. It’s a bobble face! Only possible with photoshop.
    In both pictures, her face looks very puffy!

  38. mai tai says:

    That’s hilarious! Best laugh of the day.

    That’s delusion-not photoshop!

  39. RHONYC says:

    @ Persistent Cat:

    whatevs. co-ed is an old school term as i am very old school # 1.

    #2 you’re offended? umm, ok. they make a pill for that.

    #3 photoshop or no, in pap photos with no makeup she still has a very young look to me, so…i stand by my opinion, cause like an a$shole,
    i have one just like everybody else.

    cheers :-)

  40. Sans says:

    Why are we talking about JS, she has no career. She should enjoy her dough from her shoe line and go on. Craving empty attention. Sign of the Times.

  41. Gigohead says:

    back when she was hawking her shoes, I saw her at Nordstroms in NJ. I only got to see her from the back because I was shopping in the section behind where she was signing shoe boxes. She was a tiny, skinny thing!!

  42. Persistent Cat says:

    @ RHONY, I didn’t say I was offended, I said the term is demeaning. It harkens back to a time when it was unusual for women to go into post-secondary education so there needed to be a distinction.

  43. Sasha says:

    Good Lord I can see the photoshop all over her. I am only twenty years but I have more lines on my face than she does on this magazine cover!
    Plus the photo of her in the green jacket… that is not her face (maybe its the lighting and the makeup? Idk) and that is not her body. It is way too skinny for Jessica Simpson. And I like her curvy damnit!