Andrea Metcalf: 5 Things You Should Do Every Morning
How Exercise Can Lower Your Risk of Alzheimer's Death
Britney Spears: Airbrushed to Unhealthy?
Posted on Apr 16th 2010 4:00PM by Ashley NegliaFiled Under: Celebs & Entertainment
That's Fit writer Ashley Neglia weighs in on celebrity photo retouching and whether more A-listers should share their unretouched photos with the world.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that celebrities and models are photoshopped to perfection before their images are allowed to hit newsstands or TV screens. That being said, there's always some shock value when the public gets a rare peak behind the glittery curtain of celebrity. The most recent glimpse of this reality are two side-by-sides of Britney Spears posing for a Candies print ad.
The first, untouched image, which can be seen below, portrays Spears as what you might expect to see if you ran into her on the beach -- provided she's traveling with an extensive lighting crew. The second photo shows an impossibly flawless Spears with a cinched-in waist, slimmer thighs and a higher, tighter butt, yet bereft of cellulite, dry skin, tattoos and splotches on her legs. Story continues below the picture.
According to the Daily Mirror, Spears agreed to release the unretouched images to highlight the pressure women face to look perfect because she's "proud of her body -- imperfections and all," a source told the publication.
While I give Britney a thumbs up for permitting the photos to be released, she's not the first celebrity whose unairbrushed body has been dangled in front of the public eye -- purposefully or not. In March 2009, Complex Magazine mistakenly posted an unaltered photo of Kim Kardashian on its site before replacing it with the finished version. Kardashian took the faux pas in stride, publishing the following response on her site: "I'm proud of my body and my curves and this picture coming out is probably helpful for everyone to see that just because I am on the cover of a magazine doesn't mean I'm perfect."
I understand the purpose of digital retouching -- advertisers are trying to sell you something. They want the high-paid celeb or model representing their product to exude perfection in the hopes that potential buyers will purchase it. I get it. In many cases, though, photoshopping becomes excessive -- even for the celebrities whose images are being altered.
Kate Winslet is a prime example. When Winslet appeared on the cover of GQ in 2003 with longer, leaner legs, the Oscar winner responded with: "I actually have a Polaroid that the photographer gave me on the day of the shoot ... I can tell you they've reduced the size of my legs by about a third." Other stars, including Keira Knightley -- whose breasts were digitally enhanced for her role as Guinevere in "King Arthur" -- have also openly admitted to having their images altered to appear more attractive. But many choose to stay silent (for an extended list of celeb photoshopped before-and-afters, check out StilettoRevolt.com).
In a recent PopEater poll, 93 percent of readers said they want more celebrities to release untouched photos of themselves. While I'm as guilty of gawking at these before pictures as the next person, the onus should not be on celebrities to release before photos. Not only do we have plenty of candid (many times unflattering) pictures of these celebs splayed across the Internet and gossip mags, but the majority of stars -- even in real life -- already push the limit for what's attainable for an average person's body.
The problem isn't necessarily the celebrities, but the epidemic of digitally enhancing photos, which sets the bar for even fit, healthy women to strive for something that's nearly, if not totally, unachievable. For some women, and especially young girls, the endless barrage of unrealistic body images can lead not only to low self-esteem, but dangerous dieting and even death.
Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is a step in the right direction. Beyond focusing on size and shape, the ads portray healthy, real bodies. Freckles and all. And maybe that's what we should be calling for instead of leaving it to Britney.
See what That's Fit writer Ashley Neglia had to say regarding the rumors about Tori Spelling's thin frame.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that celebrities and models are photoshopped to perfection before their images are allowed to hit newsstands or TV screens. That being said, there's always some shock value when the public gets a rare peak behind the glittery curtain of celebrity. The most recent glimpse of this reality are two side-by-sides of Britney Spears posing for a Candies print ad.
The first, untouched image, which can be seen below, portrays Spears as what you might expect to see if you ran into her on the beach -- provided she's traveling with an extensive lighting crew. The second photo shows an impossibly flawless Spears with a cinched-in waist, slimmer thighs and a higher, tighter butt, yet bereft of cellulite, dry skin, tattoos and splotches on her legs. Story continues below the picture.
According to the Daily Mirror, Spears agreed to release the unretouched images to highlight the pressure women face to look perfect because she's "proud of her body -- imperfections and all," a source told the publication.
While I give Britney a thumbs up for permitting the photos to be released, she's not the first celebrity whose unairbrushed body has been dangled in front of the public eye -- purposefully or not. In March 2009, Complex Magazine mistakenly posted an unaltered photo of Kim Kardashian on its site before replacing it with the finished version. Kardashian took the faux pas in stride, publishing the following response on her site: "I'm proud of my body and my curves and this picture coming out is probably helpful for everyone to see that just because I am on the cover of a magazine doesn't mean I'm perfect."
I understand the purpose of digital retouching -- advertisers are trying to sell you something. They want the high-paid celeb or model representing their product to exude perfection in the hopes that potential buyers will purchase it. I get it. In many cases, though, photoshopping becomes excessive -- even for the celebrities whose images are being altered.
Kate Winslet is a prime example. When Winslet appeared on the cover of GQ in 2003 with longer, leaner legs, the Oscar winner responded with: "I actually have a Polaroid that the photographer gave me on the day of the shoot ... I can tell you they've reduced the size of my legs by about a third." Other stars, including Keira Knightley -- whose breasts were digitally enhanced for her role as Guinevere in "King Arthur" -- have also openly admitted to having their images altered to appear more attractive. But many choose to stay silent (for an extended list of celeb photoshopped before-and-afters, check out StilettoRevolt.com).
In a recent PopEater poll, 93 percent of readers said they want more celebrities to release untouched photos of themselves. While I'm as guilty of gawking at these before pictures as the next person, the onus should not be on celebrities to release before photos. Not only do we have plenty of candid (many times unflattering) pictures of these celebs splayed across the Internet and gossip mags, but the majority of stars -- even in real life -- already push the limit for what's attainable for an average person's body.
The problem isn't necessarily the celebrities, but the epidemic of digitally enhancing photos, which sets the bar for even fit, healthy women to strive for something that's nearly, if not totally, unachievable. For some women, and especially young girls, the endless barrage of unrealistic body images can lead not only to low self-esteem, but dangerous dieting and even death.
Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty is a step in the right direction. Beyond focusing on size and shape, the ads portray healthy, real bodies. Freckles and all. And maybe that's what we should be calling for instead of leaving it to Britney.
See what That's Fit writer Ashley Neglia had to say regarding the rumors about Tori Spelling's thin frame.
