IMAGE: GLAMOUR.COM
Forum members couldn’t wait to dive in. “YIKES! First of all, why would Sandra Bullock need to do a Glamour cover and secondly, what the heck did they do to her?!?” asked a horrified justaguy.
“She look so old here! This grey background doesn’t help too,” shared narcyza.
Also equally as appalled was Bertrando3, exclaiming, “What the hell is she wearing and that Photoshopped face and weird hairdo and ugh this is awful.”
Kite said, “So… I think this is a paparazzi/red carpet picture Photoshopped onto a body…”
Yet amazingly so, not everyone acknowledged the evident airbrushing. “How glorious to see a 51-year-old woman on the cover, and not entirely airbrushed (there clearly is to some extent, but I feel it wasn’t overdone like Harper’s Bazaar did to SJP), it’s a very nice cover. Glamour has been great lately,” approved Miss Dalloway.
“It’s always nice to see Sandra and her hair looks stunning. I’m looking forward to her feature,” anticipated Benn98.
There is undeniably a far more superior shot from Sandra’s cover story that we would’ve chosen for the cover. Check it out and share your own opinion here.
