The reader writes:

One of the covers we did featured teen pop star Hilary Duff (October 2004). The next month's cover subject was actress Mischa Barton (November 2004). Our [redacted], a [redacted] by the name of [redacted]—who has quite a reputation in the biz as a [redacted] — expressed dislike at Ms. Barton's hand as it appeared in the retouched cover photography. ("Her hand looks too old and veiny," I believe, was [redacted]'s objection at the time.) Hence, [redacted] instructed our in-house digital retoucher to lift Hilary Duff's hand off the previous month's cover, flip it around, and give it a virtual manicure.

Conclusion: Mischa Barton got Frankenstein-ed — she appeared on the cover of a glossy with national distribution sporting Hilary Duff's hand.

Here, friends is the evidence:


Hilary Duff's hand, October 2004.

Hilary Duff's Hand on Mischa Barton's arm, November 2004. Kudos to the art department lackey who took the time to change the nail polish!

You'd think that having veins in your hand meant you were, you know, alive. But no. Veins=old. And old=bad! Mischa Barton was 18 when the photograph was taken (and on a teen-friendly hit show called The O.C. — what a great message to send fans!). But since Hilary Duff was 17 that year, the younger hand won. Unfortunately, something seems weird about Hilary Duff's shoulder on the left there (click to enlarge main image) so, actually, no one wins.

Earlier: Photoshop Of Horrors Hall Of Shame, 2000-2009

15. Russian Glamour, June 2009
Beyoncé's skin looked digitally darkened on the cover of Russian Glamour — and the editors had a guide! A magazine called Joy used the same shot in December 2007. Was something lost in translation? Save your "black Russian" jokes until the end.

14. L'Oreal, August 2008
Beyoncé's skin seemed very light in ads for Feria haircolor. One theory: she was washed out by the strong lighting usually used in shooting hair.

13. Vogue, November 2009
The cast of Nine is chock-full of gorgeous women, but this shot is a mindscramble of random rays of sunlight in hair and dresses with edges so sharp they look like they're for paper dolls. As I wrote in October: "I'm guessing [Annie] Leibovitz shot them each separately and then did a composite, but when you have a person who doesn't cast a shadow on the lady next to her, then that person is a vampire." Poor Kate Hudson looks like she was slapped on as an afterthought.

12. Complex, April/May 2009
Kim Kardashian's waist was cinched, her thighs were slimmed, her skin skin smoothed out and her hairline was cleaned up. Plus, her head appears to be a different shape in the "after" image. Who would have thought a skull could be made "sexier"?

11. Self, September 2009
Kelly Clarkson's "Total Body Confidence" came from digitally slimming her waist and behind. Two Self editors explained that the cover: "is not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best."

10. King Arthur poster, 2004
Movie marketers felt they must, they must, they must increase the bust. Ironically, Keira Knightley told the Guardian that she lost her chest, doing archery and preparing for the role:

To fight, convincingly, shoulder to shoulder, she had to do that thing that is so de rigueur, which is totally to change your body shape. "I was about three times the size I am now. It worried me, but it was cool, it was a body that was doing what it should do. I haven't got a clue because I don't weigh myself, but it was all muscle and I was big. My neck disappeared. My chest flattened even more. It wasn't the most feminine thing in the world, but it worked for the part, because there was strength there, and it was needed."

Of course, Hollywood can't imagine a world in which people would see a movie starring an athletic, flat-chested woman. So a digital boob job followed.

9. Redbook, July 2007
The crazy thing about the Faith Hill Redbook cover is not that it was Photoshopped — it's that this is the standard amount of digital altering that goes into a cover. Unlike some true Photoshop disasters, there are no alarming mistakes here to tip you off. That makes it easy to accept the retouched image without even blinking. Faith Hill is a beautiful woman. But she needed 11 different kinds of alterations before she could be on the cover of Redbook. What a world.

8. Campari calendar, 2008
Jessica Alba: Just another woman whose real body wasn't good enough. In this case, her waist needed to be nipped in so she could shill liquor.

7. Vogue, May 2008
RoboGwyneth looks like a robot, or an alien, depending on whom you ask. One thing is for sure: Her head and neck are not in the same space-time continuum.

6. Redbook, June 2003
Jennifer Aniston's head was placed on to Jennifer Aniston's body — from another photo shoot. At the time, her publicist, Steven Huvane, said: "It's a combination of three pictures. If you're going to do it, then at least match her head up to her body, and make the neck look like it belongs to her. I still can't figure out which exact picture the face came from." A Redbook spokeswoman downplayed the changes: "The only things that were altered in the cover photo were the color of her shirt and the length of her hair, very slightly, in order to reflect her current length."

The neck does look alarmingly unreal, and her head and waist are out of sync somehow. Angelina is surely to blame.

5.Redbook, July 2003
The month after the Aniston debacle, Redbook was at it again: According to USA Today, "[Julia's] head comes from a paparazzi shot taken at the 2002 People's Choice awards. Her body, meanwhile, is from the Notting Hill movie premiere [in 1999]." Julia's publicist, Marcy Engelman, said, at the time: "It's a shame they didn't use the body that went with the head, because it was a great Giorgio Armani pantsuit (that she wore to the People's Choice awards)."

4. Newsweek, March 2005
The editors used Martha's head and a model's body, because Ms. Stewart was still in jail when the issue was being put together. It wasn't supposed to be a photograph, anyway, it was art: "The piece that we commissioned was intended to show Martha as she would be, not necessarily as she is,'' Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor at Newsweek, told The New York Times. Staley acknowledged that the cover carried a disclaimer: ''In this case, we identified this piece as a photo illustration." As Martha would say, it's a "good thing" you did.

3. Seventeen, May 2003
Think about all the Buffy plots which could have been orchestrated around Sarah Michelle Gellar's weird wrist appendage over there on the left, if her arm actually looked like that.

2. GQ, February 2003.
Some people saw Titanic over and over again — but they never saw those legs, on the left. Kate Winslet was pissed about being trimmed down on this cover, saying:

"The retouching is excessive. I do not look like that and more importantly I don't desire to look like that. 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. For my money it looks pretty good the way it was taken."

1. Ralph Lauren Blue Label ad, October 2009
In which model Filippa Hamilton was turned into a string of spaghetti.

The 47-year-old divorcée says:

"I got interested in the subject of the body because it's really a mother's reflection… It's the closeness I have to adolescents that drove me to become interested in these subjects."

And:

If someone wants to make life a success, wants to feel good in their skin, wants to be part of society, one has to be thin or skinny, and then it's not enough - one will have his body transformed with software that alters the image, so we enter a standardized and brainwashed world, and those who aren't part of it are excluded from society.

Ms. Boyer recently saw a magazine headline which read: "Be who you are!" Then, on the back cover? An "obviously" Photoshopped picture of a teenager. "The pictures contradict the message," she says. She feels there's a "schizophrenia" between "the representation of an ideal world, a very thin, tanned and white-toothed woman without wrinkles," and "the plebe who has health problems, who doesn't necessarily have white teeth, has wrinkles and puts on weight."

Boyer is facing lots of opposition; in the Times piece, Anne-Florence Schmitt, editor of Madame Figaro, argues: "Michelangelo painted idealized bodies, so the idea of idealized beauty was already there… It's a fake debate." Christine Leiritz, editor of French Marie Claire, exclaims: "Our readers are not idiots… especially when they see those celebrities who are 50 and look 23. Of course they're all retouched."

Still, Boyer worries about the effects, especially on children — and she was also the one who tried to make "extreme dieting" a crime.

"Children look a lot at the Internet… even if you're close by, even if you're attentive, even if you love them a lot, that's not enough to protect them. Especially when they target them, because pro-ana blogs are aimed at young girls in particular, they give them perverse advice, like, ‘Lie to your mother, say you're going to eat at a friend's house, cut your hair so you don't have to say that you're losing it.'"

All this is not to say that Boyer hates magazines:

"I buy tons of women's magazines. I love fashion and I love life… But it seems to me that as a matter of professional ethics, you have to warn people that the image of the body has been modified… Do you think you have to lie in order to dream? We must treat the public as adults, and I think it's a true feminist battle. I don't understand why women's magazines aren't rallying to it."

Point, Shoot, Retouch And Label? [NY Times]

Earlier: Quotes From The Players In The Great Photoshop Debate
More Experts Call For Disclaimers On Photoshopped Ads
France Proposes "Health Warning" Label On Photoshopped Images
France's Attempt To Ban "Inciting Thinness" Incites Jeers From Some
La Merde Et La Mode

It's no surprise that Self put Clarkson on its key September issue – her August 2007 cover was a top seller that year, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. But according to WWD Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith (a former colleague), "The issue was the magazine's worst seller through September on newsstands, pulling in 220,000 copies and causing the magazine to miss its rate base that month." What went wrong? It's tempting to believe that widespread disdain at a grotesque Photoshop job was to blame, but that's not the whole story.

Once upon a time, women's magazines had a list of rules of what worked on covers –- which teases, colors, numbers postures, type of celebrity. The media world is a lot more crowded now, the rules are continually broken and disproved, and any ladymag editor will readily admit that predicting what will sell on a cover is by no means a science. Would you have guessed, for example, that Zooey Deschanel would be Self's best selling cover so far this year, outselling even number two contender Beyonce? (That's according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations' publisher reports).

Something that fanned the popular outrage against the Self cover was the fact that anyone who cares could find out exactly what Clarkson really looks like online – and did. Everyone knows there's an element of fantasy in magazines, but when the reality (seen in hourly paparazzi and red carpet shots on blogs) and the polished image are so glaringly far apart, you can't blame readers for feeling like they're being taken for fools and walking on by.

Aggressive Photoshopping also serves to make all celebrities look exactly the same — who hasn't stood at a newsstand and wondered which indistinguishable blondish and lean cover star is which? A casual glance might easily miss the fact that that's the ever-popular Clarkson, thoroughly transformed. (Incidentally, Clarkson also got the shrink treatment from the photo department at Elle in 2007, but fewer people seem to expect body-positivity - or reality - from a high fashion magazine.)

Yeah, Deschanel hasn't moved as many units as Clarkson or Beyonce. But take a look at that cover photo again. It's sunny and appealing – and it looks like her.

A Better Self In 2010 [WWD]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop

Britain's Liberal Democrats have been pushing for airbrushed ads to carry notice saying they've been altered, and for retouching to be banned entirely in ads aimed at children under 16. As a result of the campaign the A.S.A. has received more than 1,000 complaints about Photoshopped ads in the past three months, but it has refused to tackle the issue because none of the complaints provided scientific evidence that the ads are harmful, according to The Daily Mail.

Now 44 doctors, psychologists, and academics from Britain, the United States, and Australia have submitted a report to the A.S.A. based on more than 100 academic studies worldwide that says:

Media images that depict ultra-thin, digitally altered women models are linked to body dissatisfaction and unhealthy eating in girls and women.

And argues that the advertisements promote:

Unhealthy dieting regimes and problematic eating behaviours (starving, bingeing, and purging), clinical eating disorders (anorexia, bulimia), cosmetic surgery and extreme exercising.

The paper points out that altered images can be harmful to boys as well, saying pictures that exaggerate a model's muscle development encourage, "unhealthy muscle-enhancing behaviors" like taking steroids, and can cause men to suffer from low self-esteem, reports The Telegraph.

Member of Parliament Jo Swinson, who has been leading the campaign, said:

Airbrushing means that women and young girls are being bombarded with images of people with perfect skin, perfect hair and perfect figures which are impossible to live up to.

Making it clear that retouched images represent an unrealistic ideal is a good start, but the campaign only hints at the larger assault on women's self-esteem. According to The Sun, the report mentions the disturbing fact that:

Girls aged 5½ to 7½ reported less body esteem and greater desire for a thinner body after exposure to images or thin dolls.

Barbie may be part of the problem, but the Liberal Democrats aren't taking on Mattel. The party has acknowledged that thinness isn't the only factor giving girls body image issues by calling for cosmetic surgery ads to include success rates. However, the report submitted to the A.S.A. challenged the idea among advertisers that "thin and sexy sells," by citing research that says ads featuring models who are a U.K. size 14 are as effective at selling products as those featuring extremely thin models as long as they are equally attractive. Would every image featuring an actress with a nose job require a disclaimer letting girls know that her perfectly-proportioned face is "impossible to live up to" without the help of a good plastic surgeon?

While there seems to be scientific proof that retouched images are harming women and the Liberal Democrats mean well, it seems unlikely that a disclaimer will make many people stop hating their bodies. Even if retouching were banned altogether, images can still be distorted with lighting and camera techniques. The hope is that that advertisers will start using more natural models, but sadly, the industry would probably just pressure models to be even thinner if their thighs can't be whittled in Photoshop. Larger models may not be the answer either, since a recent study found that overweight women feel worse about themselves after looking a photos of models, whether the models were skinny or not. At any size, models still represent a beauty ideal that most women can't achieve without turning to extreme diets or cosmetic surgery. The idea that there's a certain beauty ideal women should keep striving (and spending more) to attain may be rooted in advertisements, but it's now too ingrained in our culture to be undone by disclaimer in the fine print.

Call For Ban On Airbrushing Ads That Leave Girls Loathing Their Own Bodies [The Daily Mail]
Airbrushed Images Harming Girls And Boys, Experts Say [The Telegraph]
Faked Model Photo Danger For Girls Aged 5 [The Sun]

Earlier: British Lawmakers Take Stand Against Photoshop
Study: Even Plus-Size Models Lower Self-Esteem

"I wanted to look at those pictures in 20 years' time and say, 'Wow, look – after three kids – I didn't look bad.'"

Mission accomplished.

It's sort of sad it's not really about her health, or living longer for her kids. But it's not surprising. Posh works out so she looks good on magazine covers; magazine editors wouldn't shoot her unless she looked good. Shoppers buying the magazines expect perfection; the circle is unbroken.

Even though we're always complaining about Photoshop, do stars event want to be more "real"? Seems like the goal is to look as good as the false, digitally altered version of yourself. (And never mind that the camera adds ten pounds, so you'd better be 10 pounds under what you want to look like.) But is it emotionally, spiritually, intellectually healthy to rely on a glossy periodical for your self-worth?

A commenter on the Daily Fail site writes:

Well, it's a good thing that she has sons and not daughters. What a disturbing message that would be to pass on to them. Hopefully her sons look towards their father should they have any insecurities with themselves.
She seems like a nice person in her interviews, goofy and sweet. It's sad that forcing her body to be so thin is how she thinks she has to be.

Yet someone else comments:

I look back at my mom, who always exercised, and am proud that she instilled that discipline in all 7 of her children. It was a different generation then, and so she didn't have the perfectly tone body we see on some women these days (plus, after 7 kids, how could she?). BUT, I certainly don't want my children looking back at me as their mum and remembering a lazy, out-of-shape sloth. How is that a good role model????? Aesthetics aside, it's UNHEALTHY...

Yes, this is the message, this is what we've learned, people: If you don't work out seven days a week, you're a sloth.

'I Don't Want To Rely On Airbrushing': Victoria Beckham On Why She Now Exercises Seven Days A Week [Harper's Bazaar via Daily Mail]

Earlier: Ralph Lauren Takes Responsiblity For Photoshop Of Horrors
Ralph Lauren's Ridiculous Photoshop; More Ridiculous Rage

I guess when you have a posse of gorgeous, iconic ladies — Nine's Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz and Kate Hudson — you feel obliged to make them look as good as possible. But for the love of natural lighting: Why so much Photoshop?

Sassybella asks, "Did Annie Leibovitz or Vogue go a little airbrush crazy?" The answer is a resounding YES. I can't wait to see this cover in person, to try and figure out what how someone cobbled these women into an image. I'm guessing Leibovitz shot them each separately and then did a composite, but when you have a person who doesn't cast a shadow on the lady next to her, then that person is a vampire.

Leibovitz makes composite images quite often; take this photograph of Judi Dench and Helen Mirren, for instance:

Blogger Jeffrey Saddoris has read Leibovitz's book, At Work, in which she writes:

"The picture of Hellen Mirren and Judi Dench in the car was made in two different places. It was fun directing Judi Dench to act like she was talking to someone who wasn't actually there. She was saying, 'You bitch. How could you have done this to me? Why did you do that to me?' And she had that look. If we had been using film, we would have to stitch two frames together, but since we were shooting digitally, we built the final picture in the computer."

On another forum, a poster dissects the Leibovitz Mad Men shoot:

The commenter writes:

It appears that Annie shot the scene in separate composites. She took a shot of January Jones from where she is standing in the video still, THEN after she got what she wanted she moved to the left and shot Jon Hamm exactly positioned and lit how she wanted. Then I would assume she stood back and took some overall shots of the room that would later be stitched together to form the overall piece.

NOW, from an overall look the photograph appears classy and fit to the time piece and most people would walk away from it without any negativity, and I still think its a great shot... but the perspective now just bothers me. It appears as though she isn't even looking directly at him. Her overall size appears smaller than him. Also, if you look near his ass the straight line that runs on the wall... isn't so straight, its very apparent that was a poor clone job.

Even though the cover is a nightmare, there's a gorgeous shot of the ladies on the inside:

Instead of looking like a hallucinatory vision or Hollywood interpretation of the "Footprints" poem, this actually looks like a photograph of women, sitting on a couch — next to each other and existing in the same time-space continuum. What a concept.

Prima Time [Vogue]
Yay Or Nay? Annie Leibovitz Over Airbrushes Another US Vogue Cover [Sassybella]
Photo139 – Week 2 [Saddoris]
Annie Leibovitz thread [Nature Forum]

Earlier: Nine Throws Down The Oscar Gauntlet
Other Ladies Agree: Annie Leibovitz's Latest Is Painfully Lame
Photo Finish: (Annie Leibovitz & People Of Color)

"I have never yet seen, and you probably never will see, a fashion or beauty picture that hasn't been retouched. Unfortunately, we are living in a retouched world."

— photographer Derek Hudson, who says he would "make a stink" if an editor Photoshopped his pictures.

"When teenagers and women look at these pictures in magazines, they end up feeling unhappy with themselves… If people knew they had to describe what they had altered, it might make them less likely to do it. These photos can lead people to believe in realities that very often, do not exist."

— Jo Swinson, a British member of Parliament from the Liberal Democratic Party, which wants to ban altered photos entirely in ads aimed at children under 16.

"I spent the first 10 years of my career making girls look thinner. I've spent the last 10 making them look larger."

— Robin Derrick, creative director of British Vogue.





Lifting the Veil of Mere Pixel Perfection [NY Times]

Earlier: France Proposes "Health Warning" Label On Photoshopped Images
British Lawmakers Take Stand Against Photoshop
Here's Our Winner! 'Redbook' Shatters Our 'Faith' In Well, Not Publishing, But Maybe God
The Annotated Guide To Making Faith Hill 'Hot'
Faith Hill's 'Redbook' Photoshop Chop: Why We're Pissed

Last year, the lower house of French Parliament voted in favor of a bill that would ban "inciting thinness." And earlier this year, it was reported that France has the highest proportion of clinically underweight women in Europe. Meanwhile, Britain's Liberal Democrats would like to ban Photoshopping entirely in ads aimed at those under 16, and require all other ads to carry a disclaimer describing the extent of their alterations.

The new French law proposes that all enhanced photos would be accompanied by a line saying:

"Photograph retouched to modify the physical appearance of a person."

Now, we're no fans of overly Photoshopped models around here, but you have to wonder if a stamped warning has enough impact. Much like the "smoking kills" warnings on cigarettes, I imagine this warning would be shocking at first — and then quickly become old hat. Your eyes would end up passing over it, the way they do over fine print. The truth is, visual images have an impact, and a few words on a picture can't keep a woman — or a young girl — from using a Photoshopped image as "thinspiration," a barometer or standard against which to measure herself.

In addition, not knowing how much alteration was done doesn't seem helpful, either. We've been posting "Photoshop Of Horrors" images since this site's birth in 2007, and there are always a few readers who say, "I don't think they changed her nose/waist/thighs… It's just lighting." Take it from someone who worked in magazines for 10 years: "They" change everything.

But all this is not to say that the idea of a warning is a bad idea. Shining a light on the lies we're fed by magazines and advertising campaigns is always welcome. And even if a "health warning" is not enough, it's a start.

France Mulls "Health Warning" For Fashion Photos [Reuters]
'Health Warning' Call On Model Touch-Ups [News.com.au]

Earlier: British Lawmakers Take Stand Against Photoshop
France's Attempt To Ban "Inciting Thinness" Incites Jeers From Some
La Merde Et La Mode
French Women Don't Get Fat (Enough)
Annals Of Anorexia
Photoshop Of Horrors posts

On GMA this morning, Danziger unconvincingly said, "We didn't make [Clarkson] look thinner. I added a little height, because I wanted the impact of that cover." Then she changed the subject, saying "you want a colorful cover." But obviously the controversy isn't about the color of Clarkson's top (which is nice, for the record) — it's about the fact that SELF's version of her body bears no resemblance to the truth. In response to criticisms like this, Danziger says, "you can love a person, love her body, and retouch a picture." Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

In the Today Show interview seen above, Danziger spouted even more crap. After assuring viewers that "we love Kelly for the confidence that she exudes from within," she explained that on a cover, "you want to capture the essence of you at your best." Apparently this essence is just a little bit smaller than your actual physical body. She also says, "everyone can love who they are from the inside out, and want to achieve your goals." But Clarkson has achieved her goals — she's confident in herself and her work, and has repeatedly said that she's happy with her body. So how does artificially changing the way she looks help her achieve anything, or inspire anyone else to?

Danziger continues being offensive for the rest of the segment. She says, "no one can make you feel bad, only you can feel bad inside yourself," which is a pretty irresponsible statement coming from a magazine that publishes unrealistic (and unreal) images of women, and then advertises products to supposedly help actual people look more like these images. In fact, what the Clarkson cover reveals is that despite SELF's "health" focus, it's basically in the business of making women feel bad, just like the more fashion-oriented women's magazines.

Plus-size model and More To Love host Emme, who appeared alongside Danziger, touched on this fact as well. She called for "beautiful, aspirational images, but not all one way." But why do cover images need to be "aspirational" at all? There's no reason that looking at a picture of a celebrity has to make us want to be different, except in so far as this desire sells products. The idea that magazine readers want "aspirational" content is so accepted that Emme even parrots it when she's arguing for a greater diversity of body types, but what's wrong with images that are just beautiful, or just interesting, fun, or inspiring? It's time for more people question the notion that we read magazines because we like feeling unsatisfied with our bodies and our lives.

Kelly Clarkson's Photo Retouched [MSNBC]
Kelly Clarkson's Cover Photo Flap [ABC]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop
Self Editors Explain Covers Aren't Supposed To Look Realistic

Self's Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danziger, who admitted last week that this month's Kelly Clarkson cover was altered - "of course we do post-production correction on our images" - put up a post on her Self.com blog yesterday titled "Pictures That Please Us." She wrote that though the program the magazine uses is "technically not Photoshop," they "correct color and other aspects of the digital pictures we take and then publish the best version we can." Yes, every magazine cover is altered in some way, but the Kelly Clarkson isn't controversial just because it was color corrected or even because a few more locks of hair were added to her head: it's because the editors of Self constructed a new body that bears no resemblance to what Clarkson currently looks like. Below is the behind the scenes video Danziger posted, which makes it even more obvious that the cover shot was drastically altered.

Danziger explains that she's so pro-Photoshop that she's even had her own image altered:

When I ran the marathon five years ago, I was so proud of myself for completing it in under five hours and not walking a single step. But my hips looked big in some of the photos (I was heavier then), so when I wanted to put one of them on the editor's letter in SELF, I asked the art department to shave off a little. I am confident in my body, proud of what it can accomplish, but it just didn't look the way I wanted in every picture...

The same is true of vacation. I keep the pix that show us all happy and glowing and laughing and playing, not the ones where we are scowling or hungry or tired. The ones that make the Christmas card are the best of the best.

Everyone has left an unflattering picture out of a photo album, but that would be analogous to not running a photo of Kelly Clarkson with her eyes closed, not completely reshaping her body. Danziger may have altered her body in her marathon picture, but that just means that she was actually so insecure about her body that she drew herself a new one.

Oh, but Danziger goes on to claim that cover portraits are supposed to be idealized artists renderings of what the model could look like, especially since when she walks in to a photo shoot she may look as hideous as a real live person:

Portraits like the one we take each month for the cover of SELF are not supposed to be unedited or a true-to-life snapshot (more on that in a moment). When the cover girl arrives at the shoot, she is usually unmade up and casually dressed, and could be mistaken for a member of the crew or the editorial team in many cases. Once we do her makeup and hair, and dress her in beautifully styled outfits and then light her, we then set the best portrait photographer we can on a road to finding a pose and capturing a moment that shows her at her best.

Except they're not actually "capturing a moment" since the moment never existed! She continues:

Then we allow the postproduction process to happen, where we mark up the photograph to correct any awkward wrinkles in the blouse, flyaway hair and other things that might detract from the beauty of the shot. This is art, creativity and collaboration. It's not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point...

Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that. But in 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.

So even though Kelly Clarkson has said she's confident at any size and Danziger points out that Clarkson works out and is "as fit as anyone else we have featured in Self," the magazine's staffers decided having her instantly shed a few pounds would make her look even more confident and healthy.

Oh-kay, then.

In another blog post, Ashley Mateo, the editorial assistant for Self's entertainment team, writes:

The truth is, we have absolutely no reason to get worked up over PhotoShop. Magazines don't hide the fact that they're always trying to sell issues—and to sell copies, you need to appeal to readers with the best writing and the best images possible. We all know celebrities are human (at least, we all should know), so why do we get bent out of shape when a magazine alters an image to portray a celebrity in their best light? No one wants to see a giant picture of some star's cellulite on the cover of a monthly mag—that's what we have tabloids for!

Right, because if magazines actually ran unaltered photos of celebrities, women may stop hating their arms because they look fat compared to Kelly Clarkson's. If we saw a few dimples on a healthy woman's thigh in a magazine, then tabloids might stop running photos with giant arrows pointing to the tell tale signs that celebrities are nothing more than normal human women. Danziger was right: the point is that magazine covers "inspire women to want to be their best." And the best way to keep women reading Self's workout recommendations and buying the useless beauty products advertised on its pages is to inspire them to keep chasing after a version of themselves that Doesn't. Really. Exist.

Lucy's Blog: Pictures That Please Us [Self.com]
SELFy Stars: The Wonders Of PhotoShop [Self.com]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop