Digital Damage: Does Retouching Photos Send the Wrong Message?

Aug. 14, 2009 — -- September's cover of SELF magazine featuring a smiling Kelly Clarkson has caused quite a stir.

The public has seen the singer's weight fluctuate for years. But in this issue Clarkson looks thinner in the cover photo than she does in the behind the scenes video posted on the magazine's website.

The magazine denies the accusation that it retouched the star in order to make her look slim.

"We didn't make her look thinner. I added a little height because I wanted the impact of that cover," said SELF editor-in-chief Lucy Danziger. "You want a colorful cover that's going to stop people and make them pick it up."

Danziger says the magazine retouches photos slightly, but does not "publish an act of fiction."

While photoshopping photos are often part of the magazine business, critics argue it sets an unrealistic standard of beauty.

"It creates a belief in people that they somehow need to change who they are in order to be attractive enough or beautiful enough to live their life fully," said Sarah Maria, author of "Love Your Body, Love Your Life".

In March Clarkson told "Good Morning America" that the cover for her most recent album was digitally altered.

"Fans always come up to me and the little girls are like, you know, 'You're so beautiful,'" Clarkson said. "Everyone is photoshopped. They do their magic on that stuff. And I don't want people to think they have to live up to that."

Other well known celebrity airbrushing incidents include Andy Roddick's bulging biceps on the cover of Men's Fitness magazine in 2007.

Kate Winslet publicly chided the British GQ magazine when it slimmed down her thighs for the February 2003 issue.

"I do not look like that and, more importantly, I don't desire to look like that," the British actress reportedly said.