Filippa Hamilton, the 23-year-old stunner in the ad, was let go "as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract," with Ralph Lauren or -- as her agency was told -- because she was a bit too large to fit into the clothing. Interestingly, they had recently issued a statement on the issue claiming she was "beautiful and healthy" -- is this to suggest that they'd prefer to have skeletal and gaunt models representing their brand over beautiful and healthy ones?

It's hard to have sympathy for a company that perpetuates such an unhealthy body image, and they definitely won't get any from Hamilton. "I think they owe American women an apology, a big apology," she said in the NY Daily News. "I'm very proud of what I look like, and I think a role model should look healthy." Amen, sister.

Click on the video below to see Filippa talk about her weight.

Sadly, many women are not happy in their skin. Katherine Heigl says she'd rather have Nicole Richie's body.

If you only viewed celebrities on magazines and CD covers, you might begin to think that they all live in a land where upper arm skin never jiggles, second chins never appear when they smile broadly, and cellulite is against the law. But celebrities -- even the stunningly gorgeous ones -- are real people, too.

Kelly Clarkson knows a bit about photo retouching. On her blog, Clarkson said "We decided the cover of the album ... it's very colorful and they have definitely photo-shopped the crap out of me, but i don't care. Whoever she is, she looks great!"

Even though she seems to embrace retouching with open arms, Clarkson is honest about it. She attended a self-esteem workshop sponsored by Dove and she told the pre-teens "just to let you know everyone in the magazines is Photoshopped! We're all human!"

Clarkson admits that it's painful for her when she hears her own body picked apart in the media. In fact, she's learned to avoid reading magazines like that altogether. "It's horrible – they'll show celebrities with cellulite and it's like, 'Of course celebrities have cellulite! We're not fem-bots!'"

Source

For a woman, the prospect of being photographed in your undies for the world to see elicits only one feeling: overwhelming, all-encompassing dread. Sure, most of us have good reason to be afraid -- extra flab, an unflattering stomach paunch and a lumpy bottom dimpled with cellulite is, in our minds, enough to scare the bejesus out of the general population.

But even stick-thin celebs like Victoria Beckham get anxious about having their near-naked bodies captured on film, apparently. According to recent reports, the fashionista ran nine miles a day for six months in order to look her absolute best for her recent Giorgio Armani Lingerie shoot. A source close to the star says, "Like any woman, she's conscious of her body, so she worked really hard to get into optimum shape."

Even so, her hard work wasn't enough to keep the images from being photoshopped. Which leaves me wondering -- if you have to re-rouch images of a teeny, tiny woman like that, what does that say for the rest of us?

Source

It's just a matter of fact that the pages of our magazines are filled with retouched photos of celebrities and models. Too bad, really. Even if we logically know that Jessica Alba's impossibly skinny waist is a result of Photoshop magic, it makes it difficult to look at pictures of ourselves and not wish for something a little different. So it made me wonder ... if you could have any body part airbrushed in your photos, what would it be? Here's how you responded:

• Removing a double chin is what 2.5 percent of you wished for.
• A smaller butt got 12.5 percent of your vote.
• Thinner thighs were on 25 percent of your wish lists.
• A better stomach is what a whopping 47.5 percent of you would like.
• And 12.5% of you like yourself just the way you are.

I understand the wish for improved features. If the gorgeous Jessica Alba can be improved, I guess we all have room for improvement. But I can't help but wish that more that 12.5 percent had voted for not being retouched at all.

Note to magazine editors, professional photographers, and anyone else who dabbles in Photoshop ... cut it out. Jessica Alba just had her little girl, Honor, last June and she's back to pre-baby shape already. She looks gorgeous (says Maggie with a jealous sneer). But, apparently, someone from the Campari campaign didn't think she was quite gorgeous enough.

Photos have surfaced showing a shot from the photo shoot before retouching and a photo after retouching. Granted, in my opinion, they're two different photos (her head tilt is different and would they really retouch the whole background?), even so, it's obvious there's been some retouching going on.

I just think it's a shame to take an incredibly fit and gorgeous woman like Jessica Alba and find room for improvement. It's no wonder that I -- far from Jessica Alba-ish -- look at my mirror in the morning and wonder when my rear end is going to be declared the 51st state.

Source

Can you imagine Amy Winehouse as a beefcake? How about Keira Knightly with buldging biceps? Neither of these actresses is what you would call 'ripped' -- they're more aptly classfied as 'this as a rail' or even 'scary skinny.' But one website is changing how you look at your favourite celebs.

Worth1000.com, a site dedicated to digitally altered photos, has a gallery called Celebrity Steroids, in which popular stars like Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron are beefed up. Check it out here, but be forewarned -- it's kind of gross.

Yuck -- I've never been a fan of bulging muscles and this just looks so unnatural. I never thought I'd say this but I prefer the emaciated look. What about you?

(Via The Daily Mail)

Source

The Dove Campaign For Real Beauty has been based upon the idea that, while our bodies might have flaws (real or perceived), we're all beautiful. It's a good message, and they're looking to boost the self-esteem of females of all ages, starting with young girls. I'm all for it -- it's important that women realize that they don't need to be able to trade clothes with their favorite actress or be stalked by paparazzi in order to be beautiful.

However, some discussion has recently surfaced saying that the women in the Real Beauty ads were retouched. Premiere retoucher, Pascal Dangin, told The New Yorker that there was a great deal of retouching done on those ads, "But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone's skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive."

What do you think about this development? I can't say I'm surprised -- I appreciate the fact that Dove still used women of different shapes and sizes. I mean, these are regular women being photographed and filmed in their undies! I can't say I would object to a little digital help were I in their position. But, others feel that it destroys the message -- they're not showing "real" beauty if there's retouching. What do you think?

Source

I recently saw this video on Back in the Skinny Jeans and when I checked it out on YouTube, and was surprised (and a bit dismayed) to see that there are many similar videos showing how easy it is to make someone look skinnier in Photoshop or Paintshop.

I work as a photographer too and I know how to take a few pounds off the subject of a photo. Do I? Hardly ever, because when I make an adjustment like that, to me, the photo is no longer of something real -- it's a product of technology. Photos are meant to capture real life -- when you change it to resemble what you'd like to see, it becomes a sort of cartoon, don't you think?

What do you think? Is any beauty in the media these days real? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Source

Off all the women's magazines out there, I've always thought that Glamour was one of the more reputable ones. They seem to tackle issues of global importance and, at least in most of the issues I've read, were quick to emphasize healthy lifestyles over looking good at any cost.

But regardless of where they stand on such issues, they're still joining countless other magazines who crop images of their cover models to make them look impossibly thin. The latest victim is Ugly Betty star America Ferrera. I think there's no question that they cropped the image of her -- just look at those arms. They are certainly not proportional to the rest of the body.

I understand that thin sells more magazines than frumpy, but Ferrera is the furthest thing from frumpy -- she's gorgeous and talented and fully deserving of a spot on the cover as is. Don't you agree?

Source

While the controversy is raging over touching up photos to make them look impossibly perfect, there's another set of controversial photos floating around the Internet, but this time it's the opposite problem -- it's thought that photos of Victoria Beckham have been photoshopped to make her look worse, not better.

Check out these photos of Victoria Beckham (or, more specifically, Victoria Beckham's cellulite) and let me know what you think. Are those really her legs? Can she have that much cellulite and be as skinny as she is? Victoria's friends say she doesn't exercise at all--instead she keeps slim by eating next to nothing--so she might be missing all-important muscle mass. But really, those legs look like they belong to a 90-year-old.

Source

Faith Hill is on the cover of Redbook this month, and it's generating a lot of controversy. It seems that the image that appears on the cover was majorly touched-up -- any signs of wrinkles were removed and a bunch of flesh was skimmed off her arms (click here to see a comparison of the photos on Diet Blog.)

What do you think of the photos? I think she looks great before the touch-ups -- she looks much more natural. Her arms in the 'after' picture look impossibly small. And Faith Hill is unbelievably gorgeous and quite thin without any airbrushing -- why do they feel the need to make her look more perfect, more slender? Why mess with perfection?

Source