[amber]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm not arguing that her makeup on 'Live In Boston' isn't thick, simply that it's stage makeup, and stage makeup IS thick by design. It's meant to compensate for things such as pale complexions and harsh lighting (and people sitting a few hundred feet from the stage).

As far as post-production touch-ups enhancing her appearance... well, I don't doubt that either. But I also don't think it's as extensive as people make it out to be. More than likely done to even skin-tones, etc.

Stevie may be vain like the rest of us, but I just can't imagine her pushing for millions of dollars worth of re-touches... which is what it would cost to extensively re-touch a feature length concert like 'The Dance' or a feature-length documentary like 'Destiny Rules.'

I'm not saying that I don't think some scenes here and there aren't re-touched (I mean, it IS obvious, for Pete's sake)... just that I certainly don't feel it was done to the extent that is sometimes claimed.

And, I don't care what anyone says... here's an un-retouched candid photo where she's wearing low-key makeup, and this is a beautiful woman....

http://www.buckinghamnicks.net/sn/im...AHIAfter02.jpg

um, ok, but didn't she have an entire video scrapped and re-shot because it made her arms look fat??
AMber