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."

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

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.

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