This is actually a first - a magazine editor is actually admitting the blatant use of Photoshop. Although she waters it down as "retouching."
"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!"
Hey more power to you if you don't have a problem with your weight, but my guess is that you would have a problem with your real figure being plastered on magazine covers. I agree with what the other reader said, you might as well just hire body stand-ins for $75 a day and photoshop the actor's face onto their body, because that's basically what it is at this point. It would be way cheaper than paying a Photoshop artist for hours of work. I need to start an agency pronto!
Source
