Katy Perry In Rolling Stone: Hot or Not? [Pic]

Submitted by: someone? 6 years ago in Entertainment

Take a look at the before and after of Katy Perry on the cover on Rolling Stone magazine. Does she need Photoshop?
There are 158 comments:
Female 74
I have an idea. How about someone start a magazine where any altered picture is altered as a whole: brightness, contrast, black and white, color shift, cropped, etc. Otherwise, every photo in there is left as-is and unaltered.

That way, readers can commend the magazine for being "real" and they`d be saving a hell of a lot of money by not spending them on photoshoppers. I`d put more effort into finding good photographers. And that way, when a young girl hates herself for not looking like a celeb in that magazine, well then at least she`d be hating herself legitimately.
0
Reply
Female 251
why do they feel the need to fill out her bust like that? She`s got awesome boobage!
0
Reply
Female 99
Is she wearing a sock on her right foot? What the heck is that? And what was the point of changing her right hand? I don`t understand...
0
Reply
Male 2,862
Damn, she has a nice bod. Id be happy with either pic.
0
Reply
Female 1,264
I agree with colour corrections. But please, the boobs? The belly? She`s hot as she is, why ruin her and make her look like a plastic doll?

Rolling Stone, I am disappoint.
0
Reply
Male 382
OMG!!!! Without all that photoshoping KP is...

Wait... Still Hot?
0
Reply
Male 6,693
Rosie. Thats all I see. Rosie Odonald.
0
Reply
Male 417
One of the best uses of Photoshop in the publishing biz that I`ve seen. Very tasteful. Corrected white balance and lighting, added shading for definition, smoothed fabric in bra and panties, removed her stockings, smoothed the natural wrinkles on her tummy caused by the pose, bumped her boobs up a little higher, and added her fingertips back to the image rather than having them covered by the sheet.

Very well done, and not making major fake enhancements.
0
Reply
Male 173
Hot - and slighty hotter!

Not much difference there really :)
0
Reply
Male 229
Wow, so they smoothed her stomach and increased her breast size slightly.

LET`S ALL MAKE A BIG ASS DEAL ABOUT IT :|
0
Reply
Female 1,682
...Honestly. She looks hot either way so it doesn`t matter. I mean, she looks a tiny bit nicer in the `shopped one because of the lighting and stuff. But there isn`t THAT much difference.
0
Reply
Male 1,067
They`ve hardly changed her. Why even bother?
0
Reply
Female 24
drool
0
Reply
Male 675
Her hand moves, she`s missing a sock, there are a few fold lines on her stomach that go away... oh, and then there`s that thing with her tits... I`d still hit it.
0
Reply
Male 1,243
She`s a bonnie girl regardless
0
Reply
Male 143
...I`d bang either one quite happily.
0
Reply
Male 2,085
Photoshop sucks.
0
Reply
Male 115
her tits are better pre-shop!
0
Reply
Male 577
I agree with the person that thought the untouched picture in black and white would look better than the photoshopped picture did.

Also, people who are claling her ugly are mean. Just because you think she is untalented, doesn`t mean that she is physically ugly.
0
Reply
Male 26
Hot, skinny arms, thin legs, flat stomach
0
Reply
Female 430
good
0
Reply
Male 684
@jaywood, i hope you tipped them well when they were done with you:)
0
Reply
Male 2,988
I love the photoshop work done on her hand on the edge of the bed, why was that nessesary?
0
Reply
Male 10
THIS JUST IN! ANY PIC YOU SEE OF A CELEBRITY IN ANY MAGAZINE IS SOMEWHAT DOCTORED! Why is it a surprise to anyone that even if you are famous, you have some flaws? No matter how hot, any female on earth has some amount of cellulite. And for years, photos in mags have been "doctored" so the contrasts and curves of women are more "appealing". Whats is more ridiculous is that people act shocked when they see the original photos
0
Reply
Male 1,547
ITT: Girls uncomfortable about their weight and appearance and guys attempting to act "not shallow".
0
Reply
Male 1,222
Id do her
0
Reply
Female 91
I don`t get the whole pressure to be "flawless" thing, just sayin. People wonder why people have eating disorders etc.
0
Reply
Male 451
EVERY single magazine pic is photoshopped beyond belief these days. Look at a modern porn magazine. It is so obvious it is a turn off.
0
Reply
Male 181
Actually, they were quite restrained with their photoshopping. She is without a doubt on of the hottest women on the planet. Right after my girlfriend, of course. (nice save, nice save!)
0
Reply
Male 338
"I shopped her socks off"
is now officially a euphemism
0
Reply
Male 5,189
Not this time Katy.
0
Reply
Male 1,929
If you concentrate on the unshopped version and think about what you`re actually looking at, you realise how she actually looks really great, and wonder h.t.f. you thought she looked at-all bad.

Then you see the shopped one and remember that they`ve basically painted over her. But the original pic in black&white and it would look better I bet.
0
Reply
Female 61
she`s much prettier unphotoshopped. Nevertheless she`s ugly as hell.
0
Reply
Female 162
uhhh? and why do we care about who`s being photoshoped or not? it happens with all `celebrities` anyway, even if they`re hot or not.
0
Reply
Male 251
I like how they removed her socks.
0
Reply
Male 34
Could have made the .gif much slower.

Laughed longer @mclovin973`s comment than I should have.
0
Reply
Male 363
IMHO Photoshop is just fixing the imperfections that are only seen in a picture of an object. For example; I just did a photoshoot with a friend, and she`s actually quite tan, but in the pictures she looks really pastey and almost grey-ish. So photoshop just bring the picture to appear more as the subject is in real life.
0
Reply
Male 1,815
I`d ride her rotten or her mudder`s bed.
0
Reply
Male 59
Anyone else notice that they took off her shoe/boot? That wouldn`t have been hard to fix in the photoshoot...I think photoshop makes photographers lazier.
0
Reply
Female 1,203
"@GParadox
"Plus, thicker thighs are sexy."

Keep telling yourself that, fatty."

omg seriously. Some people are being really harsh here on this post. :(
0
Reply
Female 1,203
"Anyone who`s hating on Katy, regardless of photo-shop or not is delusional. I wish my gf was as hot as Katy Perry. And if yours is, I salute you and ask you to post some pics of her as well =)"

That was a really crappy thing to say. I feel sorry for your girl friend.
0
Reply
Female 781
You want a thin girl, you might not get a lot of boob. Breasts mostly consist of fat, after all.

The fact that that`s all they had to edit is a real credit to how in-shape she is, IMO.
0
Reply
Male 2,592
hot
0
Reply
Male 249
Anyone who`s hating on Katy, regardless of photo-shop or not is delusional. I wish my gf was as hot as Katy Perry. And if yours is, I salute you and ask you to post some pics of her as well =)
0
Reply
Male 35
They forgot to shop out her man chin. I`ve seen trannies hotter than her.
0
Reply
Female 500
they had to fix her hand, too, dummy. I think she looks good in both, but I`m entertained that it looks like they literally inflated her boobs.
0
Reply
Male 1,451
Um, these are either two different pictures, or the "unphotoshopped" one is badly photoshopped. Don`t believe me? Look at her hand.
0
Reply
Male 3,842
I don`t see the difference, except that the switching back and forth to the lighted/unlighted versions makes it look like her boobies are jiggling!
0
Reply
Male 266
Lady isn`t sexy no matter what they do. Can`t sing, can`t write, thirsty as a mofo, and clearly somebody`s mom. Her saturated tan and skinnier thighs are probably the worst parts of the fix.
0
Reply
Male 768
She looks good in both. Although, I think the grayish cast to her skin is from the lighting when the picture was taken.
0
Reply
Male 1,360
looks phenomenal in both.
0
Reply
Male 55
@GParadox
"Plus, thicker thighs are sexy."

Keep telling yourself that, fatty.

0
Reply
Male 25,416
Shes still hot, even if they made her boobs larger
0
Reply
Male 3,915
Zanthax - "

"idiotfilter has examined the picture a bit much ;)"
>idiotfilter
>Adolf Hitler

Now i know why he did what he did..."

you bet i examined it! lol

and omg zanthax...i had no idea...honestly...i`d change it if i could...but i`m too lazy...stupid Profile Name is stupid

0
Reply
Male 480
She`s got horrible acne. Pass!
0
Reply
Female 737
Why did they thin out her thigh? She`s already so skinny. Plus, thicker thighs are sexy.
0
Reply
Female 9,572
I haven`t read Rolling Stone Mag in a long time, but I`m not complaining since it`s a piece of crap 99.9% of the time.
0
Reply
Female 66
They moved her fingers?
0
Reply
Male 696
heh... they took off her socks
0
Reply
Female 1,441
She looks basically the same.
0
Reply
Female 255
and removed her sock!!
0
Reply
Female 255
lol they made her boobs bigger.
0
Reply
Male 3,060
non photoshop is the better of the two (no pun intended).
0
Reply
Male 2,841
Just like Emma, she was never at any point hot.
0
Reply
Male 217
Damned photoshopped pictures in magazines... why can`t they just accept the way a woman looks? This is why the only magazines I read are gaming.
0
Reply
Male 223
She`s a babe in the unedited photo, so yes.
0
Reply
Male 270
Natural FTW.
0
Reply
Female 205
w/o photoshop is much nicer
0
Reply
Male 2,402
She never was or never will be to moi.
0
Reply
Male 510
the only real photoshop they did (i dont count altering the color and removing her stomach wrinkles and socks as being significant) is the major volume pump they did on the right boob. not really that bad, i htink shes still pretty without the shoop but the boobs thing is kinda a dick move
0
Reply
Male 680
reeealy, it`s not 2 different pictures, they would`ve just used a stock image and completely redid her hand.
0
Reply
Female 3,598
they gave her a completely different hand. haha and a boob job. oh and they made her already skinny thighs even skinnier. cuz yaknow, that heroin addict look is sooo hot.
0
Reply
Male 6
it is 2 different pictures. look at the fingers on her right hand.
0
Reply
Male 628
no photoshop please
0
Reply
Male 407
8================D
0
Reply
Female 160
If they would stop touching up everything then reality would become our standard of beauty again! Argh!
0
Reply
Male 1,744
i`ve been saying she`s not hot ever since i first saw a photo of her. Can`t we put this debate to rest now?
0
Reply
Male 326
compared to most cover shots that`s a very very minor change.
0
Reply
Male 1,627
they replaced her right hand wtf
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Nope.. She`s pretty hot either way :)
0
Reply
Male 768
They made her thighs skinnier? There was nothing wrong with them to start with..
0
Reply
Male 8
"idiotfilter has examined the picture a bit much ;)"
>idiotfilter
>Adolf Hitler

Now i know why he did what he did...
0
Reply
Female 298
...em not really... not much different... i can`t stand what has become of photo editing in the mass media...
0
Reply
Male 5,163
Yep she need, look at the hands and belly please.
0
Reply
Female 423
idiotfilter has examined the picture a bit much ;)
0
Reply
Male 220
Yes!
0
Reply
Female 43
wow, the hand really changes
0
Reply
Male 3,915
yeah...they kind of didn`t do anything...slight boob lift and color re do...

BUT THANK GOD THEY GOT RID OF THE SOCK!

and those awkward troll fingers...lol
0
Reply
Male 495
Just some weird lighting in the original shot.
0
Reply
Male 7
she looks pretty much the same....
0
Reply
Male 211
no! NOBODY NEEDS FU*KING PHOTOSHOP! what the fu*k has the world come to when a gorgeous girl like katy needs photoshop to further wrap the meaning of the word "beauty" in young girls minds, jesus get a grip
0
Reply
Male 776
they really didn`t do very much...
0
Reply
Male 1,083
only minor changes. still hot.
0
Reply
Male 12
Removed a sock aswell
0
Reply
Male 531
Hot duh, id tap that all day cuh
0
Reply
Male 450
She`s hot regardless.
Too bad her music sucks.
0
Reply
Male 794
ok so they made her boobs more perky and added a color filter, big deal, nothing that better lighting and a push up bra wouldn`t do in real life
0
Reply
Female 494
I hate our society. Argh! She`s already nearly perfect gosh dang it!
0
Reply
Male 15,510
Lol, all magazine should do things like that now, show the non shopped and the shopped pics
0
Reply
Male 244
photoshop these days
0
Reply
Male 5,194
They shouldn`t have shopped her forehead down, that makes her look LESS sexy.
0
Reply
Male 7,830
okay, just as sexy without the photoshop.
0
Reply
Male 5,194
Hot either way, no shop required.
0
Reply
Male 734
The question is, why was the photograph so bad? I assume they stopped payment on the check on that photographer?
0
Reply
Male 3,301
They even photoshopped her fingers. What the douche?
0
Reply
Male 1,598
I really don`t think the photoshopping was necessary.
0
Reply
Male 605
She would look hotter with My fat load on her!
0
Reply
Male 639
The only reason why it would be necessary was the lighting. The other little details are minor and I don`t think anyone really cares.
0
Reply
2,831
i never found her particularity attractive. would i sleep with her? yes of course, but thats not the point.
0
Reply
Male 1,547
She looks fatter with photoshop. Most of the impression is from the lighting. I`d bang her any day.
0
Reply
Male 87
If they had used proper lighting in the first shot maybe. And I mean maybe.
0
Reply
Female 803
sgibson12, she`s still a Christian. She used to be a choir girl, and I`m pretty sure both her parents are pastors.
0
Reply
Male 806
honestly i really never think katy perry is hot at all. to me she just looks really very ugly
0
Reply
Male 176
I like the fact that they took off her sock.

One sock in bed... really?
0
Reply
Male 335
Hell no.
0
Reply
Male 93
Katy Perry used to be a Christian. In case you didn`t know. That`s a goofy link, but you can find others and videos on Youtube.
0
Reply
Male 522
photoshop necessary.
0
Reply
Male 306
No.
0
Reply
Male 197
The before pic is way better. Perfection is disgusting.
0
Reply
Male 1,071
Bottom line, I`d still stick my dick her
0
Reply
Male 1,378
screw slutwavers
0
Reply
Male 721
Damn shes sexy
0
Reply
Female 55
They took away her socks.
0
Reply
Male 237
THAT`s a good Shop. They didn`t really change the girl, nor made a ugly girl a perfect vamp. If they were always like that, no one would`ve ever complained about people trying to attain impossible perfection.

I`m not fond on the bust touchup nor the leg thinning. Everything else has its merits. Hand mod and bowl filling make for a better impression. Heavier contrast, gamma changes and color balancing are normal things you`d do with any picture, especially in a magazine where printing process is a Katy Perry. Skin smoothing is also not out of proportions, yes it looks plastic-like, but it`s not ridiculous either, again things you`d do for a front page.

All things I would do to my own pictures. When I get them published, I do some minor cleanup for Teh Intarwebz. Cropping, adjustments, cleanup, skin cleanup, removing the occasional Invader Zit, making whiter coffee teeth.
0
Reply
Male 1,150
ah, they just took some lines out and pushed her bust up a bit. no harm done, pretty standard for a magazine cover.
0
Reply
Male 3,076
0.o drat She is damn HOT! No need to Photoshop!
XD Why did they add fingers, Damn control freaks!
XD I`m using windows speech recognition, It took me more time to say it then it would takes me to type it XD
0
Reply
Male 447
All they really did was make her look brighter, which on the cover of a magazine expected to catch the eye isn`t exactly the worst thing ever.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
She`s hot without it, but like CmdrBittles said, it`s a better photo.
0
Reply
Male 164
no NOT, she has a horse`s face and her music sucks! go die pls.
0
Reply
Female 1,172
I don`t think she NEEDS photoshop, but I understand why they did it. The end product is definately a better "photograph".
0
Reply
Female 1,784
that is dumb. Why do they photoshop what is perfectly fine?? so dumb *shakes head*
0
Reply
Male 11,739
No, she doesn`t need Photoshop. They`re idiots. She is f-i-n-e without any adjustments.
0
Reply
Male 254
hot, but shameless `shopping.
0
Reply
Male 2,669
Hot as Hell, baby, shopped or not!
0
Reply
Female 40
she doesn`t need photoshop
0
Reply
Female 131
What is up with her right hand?
0
Reply
Female 113
I understand the evening her skintone but why did they mess with her boobs?
0
Reply
Male 1,583
besides her boobs and skin, they really didn`t even change much. she`s pretty spiffy, thats for sure
0
Reply
Male 39,890
SHOPPED!

they paled her skin and lowered her boobs and put a wrinkle on her tummy etc!
0
Reply
Female 4,039
Nope - she didn`t need it at all - but if I bet she`s not complaining - just a tiny bit more hot.
0
Reply
Male 384
meh.

i mean, what would you rather look at?
0
Reply
Male 239
I`d say she looked pretty hot without photoshop tbh
0
Reply
Male 40,728
The blinking! It hypnotizes!
Also the boobies are eye-catching! lolz!
They made her bosom fuller and her thigh thinner, isn`t pretty enough? You gotta photoshop THAT?
Oh, they took her sock off too... lolz!
0
Reply
Female 1,677
No she doesn`t need photoshop. Such bullpoo.
0
Reply
Male 1,793
Hot.. no she doesn`t...
0
Reply
Female 177
nope, definitely not

0
Reply
Male 639
Eh, not very bad. Very minor touch-ups just to make it more lively.
I think the photoshop artist did a good job of not over exaggerating.
0
Reply
Male 2
Hell yes she is still hot.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
I`d hit that.
0
Reply
Male 113
fingers look funny
0
Reply
Female 812
Men like a little meat on women!
So the "improvements" I see are:
1) better working and fitting push up bra plus darker breast shadow
2) she`s no model --> modeling from head to toe also means know what you do with your hands/fingers (thank you tyra)
3) if you don`t like the socks, then do not put them on her!?
4) tan/lighting
5) other eye colo(u)r? just use contacts for that!
0
Reply
Male 127
That`s a neat little trick she`s doing there, haha -- I say Hot, no need for Photoshop!
0
Reply
Male 288
The answer is hot.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Strangely mesmerising...
0
Reply
Male 423
I`d hit it either way I just dont care
0
Reply
Male 3,431
I...can`t...look away...
0
Reply
Male 1,182
to be on the cover of a magazine she does
0
Reply
Male 1,371
Link: Katy Perry In Rolling Stone: Hot or Not? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Take a look at the before and after of Katy Perry on the cover on Rolling Stone magazine. Does she need Photoshop?
0
Reply