As Deejayqueue noted, the source photo of the body was found awhile ago:
http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/photoshop-job/demi-moores-magazine-cover-body-replaced.html

If it is a re-touch, it’s a pretty bad one. If I were her I would be suing the Photoshop artist for making such a bad job of it.

When you make comments such as “I’m a trained commercial graphic artist and I see absolutely no difference between the supposedly Photoshopped US cover and the supposedly non-Photoshopped Korean cover.” in an attempt to give your post more authority, you had better be right. It really is that simple.

Now, trying to wave the whole thing off because Ms. Moore is unimportant is silly. You claimed a position of authority and you were wrong. Take your lumps and move on.

And, no Marty, it isn’t you.

Embarrassed to have even had to do that.

I will once I stop laughing. I feel your pain.. who hasn’t missed the obvious. Hope you can afford the eye examination and the new classes.

In the bygone days of film photography, I would take my top work to a professional printer, whose lab skills were far superior to mine, and had the ability to bring out the image I imagined in short time. Were I still doing work at this level, I would definitely employ a Photoshop professional to enhance my work.

Their statements are, therefore, most likely true, but misleading.

If you wish to avoid reactions like this in the future perhaps you should change your statements to merely ask what the difference is because you can’t see it. Don’t make an assertion that you know what you’re saying and you’re a professional because it makes you seem full of yourself.

As for the relevance of Demi, she is kind of irrelevant as far as pop culture goes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/demi-moores-photoshopped_n_369057.html

Has this been resolved?

Pray, will Ms. Moore and her representation be overcome should they wander into the digital desert that is TMZ?

the AB shots have different reflections in center, fringe round shoulders, folds round hips, and completely different whatever you call that fanny diaper thang.

nope, might was way just paint it from scratch.

Anybody could make up a letter and seen it to as many people as they please.

I say this because this course of action is so monumentally ill advised that the only probable rational explanation is a hoax.

Thinner is better.

It’s a mental affliction. A perspective bias that people in fashion and the media are emersed in (to an extent).

To Xeni: Ms. Moore requires some criticism here: she hasn’t stopped her (asinine) lawyers from attacking.

In any case the lawyers for Moore are just attempting to suppress the open discussion by scaring Boing Boing. They are ones at the disadvantage due to three reasons.

1) Freedom of speech, obvious but relevant because this is one of the strengths of this nation, the idea that all can say whatever they want. This helps sustain an informed population, and not mindless automatons.

2) Regarding slander, it’s quite difficult for any celebrity to win a slander case even if it is blatant. This is because the supreme court has operated under the idea that although slander against the common citizen is a serious crime, there is a “two tiered system” (my own words) where celebrities partly lose their status as a private citizen because they choose to be in the public eye. Past cases have shown that when public figures sue for slander, lower courts generally award damages, however when the case is appealed to the supreme court they over turn the ruling citing this idea. Regardless of the above, I do not believe that Boing Boing has committed any slander so supreme court precedent is rather tangental.

3) Freedom of the press would deliver the knock out blow against Moore, because Boing Boing is acting in an Investigative Journalist manner, sorta makes them untouchable. (everyone do the moon walk now with MC Hammer, “Can’t Touch This”)

To Moore, hire some better lawyers, the one(s) you have now are wasting your time and money. What you need is a better contract with the magazine stating something like “under the pain of fine of “X” monetary amount, The magazine and or company shall not manipulate images taken of my client in a way that would cause negative controversy. We acknowledge the use of Photoshop to enhance images but not to distort in a way that puts our client in a bad light.” or something along these lines so that you can have some leverage against the magazine if they screw with you personal image too much.

they often change kinks models have in their bodies in that matter

I want them to grow up with a reasonable self image. These doctored photos that grace the covers of so many magazines often represent an ideal that can not be achieved by the vast majority of women. That’s why I take such sublime schadenfreude when I encounter these photoshop disasters plastered all over the blogosphere.

I don’t care what these people are selling, I plan to point out all these badly doctored images to my daughters so that they get the message that every mature woman knows: This is stupid.