[Crimson Dynamo]

Looking at Susanna Reid on the froint page of this weeks Radio Times I thought "she looks a bit wrong" and its because her bags under her eyes and some lines have been airbrushed out.

Why? She just looks silly - what is the reason that picture editors do this?

[Josy]

It makes the magazine cover more 'appealing' so more are likely to pick it up when they glance at it in a store.

Sad but true.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Josy

It makes the magazine cover more 'appealing' so more are likely to pick it up when they glance at it in a store.

Sad but true.

I get that but surely by making her look odd people will be more put off and think that if they can lie about her looks they can lie about other things?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I get that but surely by making her look odd people will be more put off and think that if they can lie about her looks they can lie about other things?

Yeah I get what you mean but most don't bother tbh..

There was a big kick up about this a few years back actually because the magazines were using extreme airbrushing techniques and some felt this added to teen eating disorders, it was supposed to be banned but never happened.

It's actually standard practice for every image in a magazine to be retouched slightly to remove stray hairs, blemishes etc but they take it too far and cut away parts of celebs bodies to make them appear 'slimmer'

[Josy]

I think it makes them look fake, I know the pics really are fake after airbushing but ykwim

[Crimson Dynamo]

No wonder woman have body issues

[Z]

That's so ridiculous looking at those comparison pictures. The ones on the left look like perfectly normal but still beautiful women at whatever age they're at. The ones on the right make people feel bad about themselves, including probably the people who have been airbrushed because they know they don't look like that!