Skip Nav
Healthy Recipes
If You Want to Lose Weight and Still Drink, Read This
Healthy Living
Stop Stress in Its Tracks With These 5 Easy Tips
Healthy Eating Tips
Golden Milk: The Antidepressant, Debloating Wonder Drink

Editor of Self Magazine Defends Using Photoshop to Slim Down Models

Speak-Up: Should Magazines Slim Down Celebrities?

Fans were pissed when Kelly Clarkson showed up on the cover of Self a few months ago clearly Photoshopped. She didn't mind though — Clarkson has said in several interviews that she's OK with her photos being retouched and that it's a reality of her job.

Self copped up to retouching the image, stating that it often adjusts lighting and color of photos, as well as altering its images to present the "best version" of the model to the audience. Self went on to state that the photos it chooses are about inspiring women to be their best.

Months later, Self editor Lucy Danziger still defends the cover, saying that retouched images are what women want and that heavier models would not sell magazines. Self is by no means the only magazine doing this, even Barbie needs a makeover according to the fashion industry.

Do you agree with Danziger— do you think it's OK for magazines to retouch photos of models and celebrities? Is it what you really want?

Image Source: Getty
DivaDivine DivaDivine 7 years
I know magazines photoshop but IMHO a fitness/health based magazine does a disservice by posting these pictures and then dedicating a section of the magazine to the celebrities fitness and nutrition regimen. I think there are enough healthy role models in the celebrity sphere who would be able to represent the magazine well. Right now, Kelly Clarkson isn't one of them.
Spectra Spectra 8 years
On one hand, I see the point of touching up photos to remove blemishes, etc. My wedding pics were photoshopped a little bit to soften the shadows and to make our skin look nicer, but he didn't do any digital slimming. I can see why Kelly likes the photoshopped version of "her" isn't really HER; it's her minus about 30 lbs. Honestly, she used to be a semi-healthy weight, but lately it does seem like she's let herself go a bit. If Self wants thin people on their covers, they should pick cover models that are actually thin instead of putting such an edited picture on their cover.
sunsophia sunsophia 8 years
I think ps is just another part of the industry. Professionals are hired to make the subject look thier best and that includes a retoucher, no one ever complains of girdles or the fact that clothes are pinned all the way down the back, or the heavy camo make up? Photoshop is a part of that. And if any one of us were to grace a national magazine would you decline to touched up bit?
bengalspice bengalspice 8 years
Maybe they needed to slim her down so they could fit all that text? Man, did Kelly Clarkson really let her body go ... lovely face, but she doesn't look as youthful as she used to with all that weight gain. For a moment I thought it was Valerie Bertinelli.
Yogaforlife Yogaforlife 8 years
I see a point to using photoshop to remove pimples or correct lighting, or even for slight adjustments to the body. I don't think there should be a need to photoshop the way RL's ad did or the way Shape did here. The point of Shape is to encourage and teach a healthy lifestyle. While Kelly seems like a nice enough person with a semi healthy attitude, she doesn't exactly represent the kind of healthy lifestyle the magazine is selling. I don't believe they should have used her if they had to do such extreme photoshopping to ensure the magazine sells. My niece had her kindergarten pictures last week and the package included photoshopping "teeth" in for kids missing teeth (my brother opted not to even though she was missing 2 teeth on the bottom), and a whole range of fixes for flyaway hair, pale skin, crooked smiles, even blemishes - what 5 year old has blemishes? I'm sorry, but even if my child somehow had a blackeye, I'd treasure that picture with the blackeye for the funny memories it would invoke. I sometimes think photoshopping is going too far.
kimmieb124 kimmieb124 8 years
It's insulting that the Self editor thinks photoshopped pictures are the "best version" of women. I also find it insulting as a woman that other women would think that "extensive photoshopping is necessary" under any circumstances. We should celebrate women of all shapes and sizes and recognize that good health doesn't always come in tiny packages. I'm not saying that Kelly Clarkson is the epitome of good health, but maybe because of that Self should have picked a different model rather than photoshopping her. I'm not surprised at their hypocrisy, though. Self has done this kind of thing before, and I actually don't have much respect for this publication even aside from this situation.
sloane220 sloane220 8 years
this is a health and fitness magazine so they should just put healthy women of ALL sizes on the magazine, and that certainly isn't kelly clarkson with her unstable weight and yo-yo dieting. a woman doesn't have to be skin and bones for me to buy a magazine.
sydneybennett sydneybennett 8 years
I didn't mind the photoshopping, what bothered me about it is that Danziger said Kelly had total body confidence but then they blatantly cut her body size in half. It was hyprocritcal and insulted my intelligence. I'm not stupid. They thought Kelly looked fat in the photo so they photoshopped her. Had Danziger just said that I wouldn't have canceled my subscription I have had for over 10 years. I think I'm going to check out Shape magazine ;)
insanitypepper insanitypepper 8 years
I never buy a magazine based on what or who is on the cover. The stories on the cover celebs are only about four sentences long anyway. That said, this is some extreme & unnecessary photoshopping.
tlsgirl tlsgirl 8 years
Honestly, why would I buy the magazine if the image used is the one on the left? Self is supposed to be about health and fitness and looking your best, and the photo of "real" Kelly looks like she's been eating too much McDonald's and skipping the exercise. I'd rather purchase a magazine with an aspirational cover, rather than one adorned with someone who yo-yo's constantly (and kind of extremely) and can't seem to get a handle on a healthy weight.
mod16 mod16 8 years
our world is so obsessed with perfection and beauty it is ridiculous
smesarchik smesarchik 8 years
I think thay Kelly Clarkson is a big enough star to sell magazines just as she is. I happen to think she just looks like a woman. And I think she is pretty the way she is. Photoshopping creates something that is unrealistic. I mean, if we alter the picture we are altering reality itself. That in turn alters how women perceive a healthy body image. It's not real. And it's not right.
llendril llendril 8 years
choose a different cover model if you don't think the current one will sell magazines.
dunnonuttin dunnonuttin 8 years
Anybody who knows who Kelly Clarkson is realizes that's not really "her" on the cover - so I think it makes the magazine look hokie. I also wonder who would take the advise of the magazine's "Total Body Confidence" article displayed on the cover? I think Kelly has a great attitude about the whole photoshop issue though.
leslievanhouten leslievanhouten 8 years
I think of those covers as an idealized version of a person. A certain amount of PS is inevitable, but it shouldn't completely distort a person, like the model in the RL campaign. I do like how all this publicity is given to PS in the media, so people know that celebs and models don't look like that in real life. Even in real life, they've got tons of make up, extensions, and have "detoxed" the days before a red carpet event. A good friend is a hollywood make up artist and has worked on tons of celebs. I told her I wished I had hair like Eva Mendes. Her reply "Eva Mendes doesn't even have hair like Eva Mendes. Do you have any idea how many people it takes to make her look like that?"
mamasitamalita mamasitamalita 8 years
agree, chloe bella..... as someone who suffered with acne for many years, the LAST thing I want to see is a girl on a magazine cover with pimples. it grosses me out on my own face, why would I want to see it on someone else?
soapbox soapbox 8 years
I'm indifferent. They photoshopped our high school photos (Thinned out arms, smoothed out skin, ect) I didn't complain. As long as it's not excessive.
chloe-bella chloe-bella 8 years
I have to disagree with that, PinkNC. Photoshopped or not, most celebrities are still going to be more attractive than the average person. No matter what her weight is, Kelly's always going to have a pretty face. The problem isn't photoshopping, it's people believing that their self worth should be determined by how they measure up to celebrities.
PinkNC PinkNC 8 years
They should leave their chunky bodies, pimpled face, varicose vein, and wrinkled skin, just like it is. These celebrities should be seen in all their TRUE glory so that young girls will not harm themselves trying to look like them. The celebrities go along with the lies so they can make more money, but I say treat them TMZ style since they have so much smart mouths sometimes. Show the celebrities for who they are. Maybe they'll come back to reality and will stop fake it and messing up their own lives.
chloe-bella chloe-bella 8 years
I don't have a problem with a little photoshopping, but I think it's ridiculous to take a size 12-14 girl and make her into a size 2. If they didn't want a plus size girl on their cover, why couldn't they just do a head and shoulders shot of Kelly?
arianamarie arianamarie 8 years
i don't think we have a choice...if they didn't photoshop, they wouldn't make money and we'd judge, but them being photoshop motivates normal women to stay it's a double sided coin i guess
rivrchild rivrchild 8 years
I don't typically buy these magazines anyway. I might flip through them when I'm bored. But on that note, I would probably be more likely to pick up one that has a curvy size 12-16 model on the cover who looks great and is NOT photoshopped. Which, btw, if I could have a conversation with one of these magazine's editors I would remind them that it is possible to have a size 12-16 gal look great without photoshop! If the recent reactions to the nude "plus-size" model in Glamour are any indication, then plenty of women would be joyous to see a more realistic cover.
What Makes Birth Control Pills Less Effective?
Kelly Clarkson Photos of Son's First Birthday
Kelly Clarkson Responds to Body Shaming on Twitter
How to Lower Cortisol Levels
From Our Partners
Latest Fitness
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds