Kelly Clarkson looks great, but not like herself on the September cover of SELF. Photo: SELF

Kelly Clarkson doesn't subsist on celery and lemon water. She eats well, works out hard and lives a healthy life. The fact that those things don't put her in a size 2 doesn't bother us one bit, nor does it bother her. However, the editors at SELF magazine weren't quite as comfortable with it.

Fitness fanatics and celebrity gossip addicts alike have been all a-twitter over Clarkson's obviously airbrushed SELF magazine cover. In fact, it generated so much buzz that SELF editor-in-chief Lucy Danziger wrote a blog post about the retouching, titled "Pictures That Please Us."

In her post, Danziger compared retouching a celebrity image for a magazine cover to choosing the best vacation photo; you want the "best of the best" for both. SELF magazine covers "are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot," Danziger says. "It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point."

Kelly performs on "Good Morning America" on July 31. Photo: Jemal Countess, Getty Images

But, here's the thing. Is Kelly Clarkson "better" with a few inches shaved off her hips? Danziger seems to think so, saying they retouched the photo "Only to make her look her personal best ...[I]n the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand."

We disagree. We like the fact that there's a beautiful, confident celebrity out there who's happy with her healthy curves. Removing flyaway hairs and wrinkles in the clothing is one thing, but when a health and fitness magazine feels the need to alter its cover girl, they might need to reevaluate the message they're trying to send. And if that message is that you have to be a certain size to be on their cover, perhaps they should stick to celebrities who are naturally that size.

Obviously, we're not alone. Just check out the results of this poll about celebrity retouching!