Kelly Clarkson Was Retouched to Make Her “Look Her Best”
Kelly Clarkson may not have an issue with her weight, but a digitally slimmed-down image of the singer on the cover of Self magazine is causing waves online.
Lucy Danziger, editor-in-chief of the women’s health magazine, is speaking out in defense of “retouching” the 27-year-old singer in order to make her “look her personal best” on the September issue.
“Yes. Of course we do retouching,” Danziger writes in a post on Self.com. “Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best.”
Calling Clarkson “the picture of confidence,” Danzinger writes, “I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.”
But many readers have expressed disappointment and outrage over the digitally slim Clarkson. “Hey, hi, Self ladies: None this changes or explains the fact that YOU ALTERED THE BONE STRUCTURE OF HER FACE,” write one reader on jezebel.com where the controversy is stewing.
Adds another reader: “Taking out red eye and airbrushing a pimple would be making her look her personal best. You completely changed the way her body looked. Why even bother asking Kelly Clarkson to pose in your magazine if you didn’t think her body fit into your idea of what was best?”
In the Self article, Clarkson defends her figure. “When people talk about my weight, I’m like, ‘You seem to have a problem with it; I don’t. I’m fine!,’ ” Clarkson says. “I’m never trying to lose weight – or gain it,” she added. “I’m just being!”
This is not the first photo flap the singer has been involved with: In January Clarkson wrote on her blog that “they Photoshopped the crap out of me!” on her All I Ever Wanted album cover image. Check her photoshopped album cover HERE!
Source: People Magazine
REALLY? They made her look her best? So “her best” is minus 30 lbs, while she clearly says that she is fine with her weight?!
What do you think about all this?
Again I ask Self, what happened to ‘Stay True to You’?
They’re so full of $hit. I hate it when they try to put a positive spin on stuff like that. Why aren’t they honest and say:
“Listen mates, we’re not a magazines furthering an ideal. We’re a business. We want money, and for money, we’d photograph our mothers and call them whores. People want to buy magazines with photos of impossible beauty, so they can feel like shit. People don’t want to relax, and accept who they are. Because the rest of the world won’t and you don’t want to be the happy, self-esteem chick in a world of insecure women. That’s like being covered in honey and kicking a hornet’s nest.
So yeah, we photoshopped the hell out of her.”
But I guess that would be too honest…
Lol.
But come on, it’s not that serious. Would this have been a big deal if they did the same thing to, say, Taylor Swift? No, because I seen tons of -overly photoshopped pictures of that girl but because she is slim it’s ok.
Did they make Taylor look 4 sizes smaller? But yes, overly photoshopped ANYONE, regardless of their size, is a big deal. Especially when they completely change their body size/shape.
Absolutely horrid of them, IMO. And yea, I would be feeling the same if they had taken a slim or skinny woman and photosphopped her bigger(have they done that?), it’s just plain asinine.
they give them bigger boobs sometimes
kelly is so freaking hot, i would worship her to no end. she is so sexy the way she looks right now. even thought im not a big fan of her music, she is extremely gorgious!!!! wow, yummy yummy yummy