To be honest, I prefer her UNairbrushed. At least she looks more real.

Posted by: Tine | June 20, 2007 12:37 PM

Well I don't think it matters in the slightest because she still looks gorgeous, whatever. And really it doesn't make any difference to celebrities because they don't even look fat or ugly in the 'before' pictures. Doesn't matter to me anyway. (And I AM NOT jealous, no, not at all....)
Come on ladies, let's get real, there are other far more serious issues to get really angry about! (Child abuse, poverty, domestic violence, homelessness, to name a few.)

Posted by: maz | June 20, 2007 12:59 PM

I can't see the problem, ALL magazine/fashion photos are retouched, my hubby work in the graphic industry and he always says it's unthinkable not to airbrush pics and it's been this way for years and years, contrary to what some people think pictures are not a reproduction of the reality,they don't exist as pictures, the colours everything, is decided by the person thats printing it, or in case of magazines by a team of persons.

In my opinion it gets too much when the idea of the person is changed completly, but I agree with Maz, i don't know if I really care...

Posted by: doris | June 20, 2007 3:03 PM

yep, I agree with Maz, this really isn't an issue people should be getting too worked up over - if you want to get angry over body issues, there are more pertinent problems to consider. But I do this for a living, and like Doris says, airbrushing is just a fact of life when you're dealing with images being used in the media. Because nobody wants a dull, lifeless looking picture, no matter how 'real' it may be, to sell their goods (which is what they're all about essentially).
While people love to get all pious over this sort of thing, I'm sure if customers were presented with 2 sets of images, they'd pick the touched up ones, simply because they look better. And in this day and age when everyone and their pet fish has Photoshop, I reckon most people are aware that what they see in a magazine is an illusion anyway.

Posted by: maya | June 20, 2007 3:52 PM

Yes, but this isn't just about retouching a few pimples or crows feet here and there. Manipulating or reducing someone's body shape by more than one dress size like the Kelly Clarkson picture is just flat-out wrong.

And no, not everyone is aware of how much touching up goes into the pictures that we see in magazines.

Posted by: jessica | June 20, 2007 4:05 PM

Maz, you're right about those other issues being more serious, but you have to remember this is a fashion blog!

Posted by: Gemma | June 20, 2007 4:20 PM

Yes I agree there's bound to be retouching in everything but from the pictures that I've just seen.... I think it's Kelly Clarkson and Beyonce that they've downsized....ok, but more worryingy enough it's everybody else that they've made to look that little bit more "fuller figured" which means...what do they look like in real life then?!!!

Posted by: Elaine | June 20, 2007 5:20 PM

The people who grace the covers of magazines are just as flawed as everybody else. Whats disturbing is when their digitally enhanced bodies and faces are used to promote so called wonder products. I wish somebody would airbrush me!

Posted by: vicky | June 20, 2007 7:27 PM

I agree with Doris. We all can recognise both pictures as Kelly Clarkson so what's the problem? And as it was pointed out this is a fashion blog - the world of fashion is all about image and creation and I think air brushing is just a part of that world.

Posted by: Charlotte | June 21, 2007 4:28 AM

I'm actually quite shocked by some of the comments here.

I have no issue with airbrushing to remove shadow, improve lighting, take away shine or stray hairs etc. Everyone knows what we see in magazines is not a true representation of how someone looks in the flesh and small touch ups sell copies. What got me about this photo is the amount of weight that's been shaved off her hips and bottom, and the way her face has been slimmed down even though it doesn't need to be. Fashion is all about aspiration, but this just sends such a terrible message to people - particularly since Kelly has so many young, impressionable fans.

The truth? Kelly Clarkson would still be tiny by most people's standards. If she stood next to me I'd look like a heifer in comparison and I'm still a dress size and a half below the average woman in the UK. But still they felt the need to make her look like every other miniscule cookie cutter starlet by slimming her down. It really infuriates me. She's young, healthy and beautiful, but that's still not enough.

Posted by: Gemma - Catwalk Queen Editor | June 21, 2007 10:18 AM

Personally I am thankful to Catwalk Queen for bringing this to our attention. No, not because I am worked up over it and this was never the issue. The thing is that it DOES help me in remembering that what I see is not how things are when flipping through magazines. Yes, of course we all know airbrushing gets done..but witnessing this puts things again and again in a new perspective. If we keep seeing examples of before and after images perhaps our own self-esteem will improve with time and the images in the glossies will not have as much power over our minds in the end. Go ahead, tell me it is pathetic to be influenced by mags. But I am only human and can't help but look at myself critically in the mirror when flooded with images of perfection through the media.

Posted by: Divina | June 30, 2007 3:41 PM