Another photoshop mis-use?

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment...-1226324714330

WHY would you Photoshop Megan Fox?

You can imagine magazine bosses wanting to edit the vacuous stuff that comes out her mouth, but editing her actual body? There's no sane reason to do so.

But the editors of French Grazia magazine felt photos actress needed manipulating before gracing the front cover.

Grazia erased one of her tattoos, possibly because the ink on her bare back clashed with their headlines.

Fox has two tatts on her back, one a quote from King Lear - "We will all laugh at gilded butterflies" - and the second a quote from philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche - "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."

Grazia got rid of the Nietzsche quote (he was German after all) but what's funny about their Photoshopping is that they ran the unedited picture inside.

It's not known if Fox approved of the tattoo removal, but it's a fair bet that Nietzsche would have. After all he did say: "There are no facts, only interpretations."

Mind you he also said: "And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you", which could be a warning against putting Fox on the cover magazines.

[ricktas]

hahaha

Not the first time for Grazia : http://jezebel.com/5830332/grazia-fa...ddletons-waist

[mikew09]

LOL - exactly ;-)

[I @ M]

In the scheme of things it isn't that long ago that photography was hailed as a medium to present irrefutable proof of the realism of many things.
These days it seems that it is merely a tool in the line of presenting mistruths, false perceptions, possibly a way to alter history and to fuel consumer want need through advertising.

[Bennymiata]

Personally, I think she would have looked better with NO tattoos.