This is pernicious in the case of celebrities and those in the eye of the general public.

What really bothers me is this

http://naturalbeautiescontest.homestead.com/retouchc.html

I look through these and can only think to myself, do we really need to remove all shed of a soul from these kids?

I don't see her hip line as her ilium (wing of the pelvis) sticking out, rather as her oblique abdominal muscle being prominent. Possibly it was removed because 'muscly' women are similarly considered 'inappropriate' as 'fat' women.

Going by what gyms tell people, women are meant to 'tone' and men are meant to bulk up. Tone seems to mean lose fat without gaining too much muscle, in this instance.

what's actually upsetting about this is that the things they've edited are literally impossible at her weight. they edited out a damn bone!

I wish there wasn't so much blaming language in this article - the quoted editors talk as though the thinness of the models were some kind of bizarre natural disaster instead of being something that the fashion industry demands.   And the description of these women as "grotesque" really bugs me - first, because the fashion editors are distancing themselves from the very thing that they demand and second because skinny bodies aren't grotesque.  Just as we all have fat friends and relatives, surely we all have some skinny ones?  I don't want people insulting my thin friends any more than I want them insulting my fat ones, even though I recognize that the social position of a fat woman is much more difficult and painful than that of a skinny one.

skinny to average. average to skinny ..either way it's body policing.. it's still this weird societal control over female corpses

When I first heard about this, I wondered, "can't they just find slightly larger models?"  It's not like it's that hard to find a size 2 who looks a bit fuller.  Plus, models (and people in similar professions) are constantly being told "you can't gain any weight.  Five pounds and you're fired" or "you look fine now, but you'll make that much more money if you lose five pounds."  Yeah, models need to fit the "sample sizes," but I go into stores where I'm simply swimming in the smallest size (GAP, Land's End), yet the models are visibly smaller than me.  The clothes on many models are pinned and re-sewed or even custom made for the photoshoots.  Fashion models tend to be young teens, even when the target audience is wealthy older women, and they're kicked to the curb once their still waifish frames fill out even barely.  A lot of them get into drugs like coke to be even thinner.  Then, after all of that to get what photographers and agents call "perfect," they're retouched and photoshopped because they look "better" with the 5 pounds they were told they had to lose or couldn't gain.  Maybe it would be easier to have healthy looking models if instead of forcing them to look unhealthy then "fixing" them, they didn't go out of their way to chose the most extreme natural bodies, then tell them to start losing.

For celebrities, this is even weirder.  We KNOW what they look like.  They go on live TV, they star in movies, they fill the pages on tabloids with candid pictures of them looking their worst.  We know Cameron Diaz doesn't look like that "after" picture.  Plus, some of the edits don't do much to erase her thinness.  Instead, they mostly erase her age and ethnicity.  She's of mixed race (Cuban, German, Cherokee) and nearly 40 years old.  In the second picture they didn't only thicken her up a bit, they lightened her skin and erased the wrinkles and cheekbones on her face.  She looks like pre-baby Britney Spears in the second picture, where in the first she looks like....Cameron Diaz.  Her facial structure isn't a result of being "too" thin, it's the result of being a thin 40 year old woman.  In fact, a lot of the claims that her weight was erased seem more like her AGE was erased.  Her boobs sit a bit lower and her stomach doesn't look like an 18 year old's, so they got rid of it.

The phrase "grotesquely thin" kind of bugs.  It's pretty horrible to call anyone's body grotesque.  That's still a person in there.

I think the fact that they never enlarge the waists is very telling.

"A fuller, more natural look"?????????????A biological organism is less natural than a photoshopped alteration?

Is 'reverse photoshop' like 'reverse discrimination', in that the 'reverse' is used to signal a difference that isn't a reversal?

Where do these readers actually exist?  What space do they occupy?  They are apparently at once repelled by 'grotesquely thin women' who saturate the fashion industry, but at the same time they are presumably the people buying clothes and fragrances sold by those grotesquely thin women who saturate the fashion industry. Women never see how ugly super-thin can be?  No, the issue is that super-thin is presented as not only attractive, but required for respect.

Where do these readers actually exist?  What space do they occupy?  They
are apparently at once repelled by 'grotesquely thin women' who
saturate the fashion industry, but at the same time they are presumably
the people buying clothes and fragrances sold by those grotesquely thin
women who saturate the fashion industry. Women never see how ugly
super-thin can be?  No, the issue is that super-thin is presented as not
only attractive, but required for respect.

I hate when people do this... Can't you recall the people you meet?

I knew someone who was as skinny as the picture on the left naturally. I've known a few. They all also looked substantially healthier than the picture on the left.

While this debate is incredibly important, the points you raise only have currency when you use a genuinely underweight, not just slim and fit woman to make your point. Cameron Diaz (who I've met numerous times and loves her food) is naturally slim, always has been and is very into sports, that is a muscle, not a hip bone.
The type of retouching you discuss in this picture has always been adopted, the difference today is that the younger photographers rely on photoshop to fix things afterwards instead of the more time consuming skill of great lighting to accentuate the positive.

On whose behalf, and for what reason, should we be horrified? Is the concern that we must protect women from "developing an
unrealistic self-image"? Does anyone else see how sexist that notion is
on its face — as if women are too weak-willed and lame-brained to be
trusted with glamour photos that may shatter their delicately Victorian
sense of selves?

Or is the goal to promote truth in advertising? In
either case, then we should also ban or regulate, just for starters, the
push-up bra, breast implants, artificial eyelashes, botox, and lip
gloss.
 
It follows that, if "reality" is the goal, or the
only reasonable benchmark, then we ought to require people to walk
around with text stenciled on their foreheads saying they've had lipo,
they still suck in their stomachs at parties, and they've
shaved their armpits. After all, those things are not what nature
intended; promote unrealistic body images; and, being augmented reality,
are carried out to deceive.
 
Cosmetics are merely "hope in a jar"; Photoshop, on the other hand, offers guaranteed results. How is that a bad thing? I wonder how many women or men wouldn't
like to look a little younger, a little trimmer, when they have their
photo taken. In fact, as a professional photographer, I've learned that rather a lot of the very same
people who profess to hate "photochopping" would, if given the option,
prefer to look at a photo of themselves in which they're five pounds
less heavy, and in which they have mild laugh lines instead of deep
crow's feet — "reality" be damned. They want other people's pictures to be unretouched; I suspect they'd like their own portrait to be the sole exception.
 
I
attempted to test this theory in a discussion on an online forum once . To the woman who publicly excoriated fashion
photography and Photoshop artifice, I extended this (I thought) rather
generous offer: "I invite you to have your photo taken by me. After I'm
done brightening eyes, smoothing skin, and so on, you get to pick either
the high-resolution before or after version to display to the world (Facebook/Flickr/YouTube et cetera.). When would you like to schedule your free session?"

I never heard from her again.
 
The
effectiveness of any of the augmented-reality methods I mentioned above
(Photoshopping included), and the degree to which they convince people
that there's no choice but to copy that look in real life,
depends entirely on the gullibility of the beholder. The answer to the
problem, then, is not "Let's have a
Photoshop / fashion police." The answer is "Stop being such an
impressionable dimwit."
 
I'm genuinely happy about this
YouTube video, which I've already watched several times with my daughter, who are seven and ten (they are anything but dimwits, though still plenty
impressionable). It's a great discussion piece, and we had a nice talk
about it that we'll repeat as necessary:
 
http://www.youtube.com/v/iYhCn0jf46U&hl
 
It
seems to me that, as usual, education is a thousand times better than
legislation. This whole debate is ultimately about personal freedom —
the freedom to pursue the image you can see in your head, whether you're
a photographer or someone dolling herself up for a date.
 

Ms Hardy's article is an excellent read, and a lot of it resonates with some of my own experience in commercial photography.

However, I think the SI treatment here needs to be examined more closely:
The vast majority of the models who need reverse photoshopping aren’t women who just happen to have that body type.  They are part of an social institution that demands extreme thinness and they’re working hard on their bodies to be able to deliver it.  This isn’t, then, about shaming naturally thin women, it’s about (1) calling out an industry that requires women to be unhealthy and then hides the harmful consequences and (2) acknowledging that even people who are a part of that industry don’t necessarily have the power to change it.

OK, first, let's throw out the term "reverse photoshopping," as absolutely nothing is being done in reverse here. Images are being retouched to fulfill an aesthetic ideal; this is the same process regardless of what body type the model has in the exposure.

On to the rest...I'm suspicious of any critique of "the industry" that doesn't actually state which industry is being criticised. Fashion? Photography? Entertainment? Publishing? Who must we take to task for issuing the orders to otherwise healthy women to make themselves unhealthy?

And once we've singled them out, how do we distinguish them from other celebrated professions that also demand adherence to extreme physical regimes with incredibly harmful consequences? Ever seen what a few years of professional ballet dancing can do to the body? We give that "industry" a pass for being "fine art." How about professional sports? We may regard athletes as ideals for physical health, but the extremes of training required for success can have severely debilitating (or unsightly) consequences, which don't tend to be displayed on the Wheaties box. 

The list could go on. Really, any lucrative enterprise that favors a specific body type or condition is going to naturally produce extreme and dangerous efforts to compete within it. Even if the full-figured look were more in demand, you would still have models going to dangerous extremes to maintain the precise figure and weight that is expected of them.

In short, the drive to succeed in a competitive world has some inevitably nasty and harmful consequences, but when you are succeeding, those consequences tend to be airbrushed out of your image. This is nothing exceptional.

Natural comes in not only all sizes but also all proportions. My grandmother had large bones. She was not fat, in fact in her later years she weighed about 85 pounds at 5' 8", yet she had to wear a size 14 dress to fit her bone structure. My Dad had large bones also. My mother and I have tiny bones and at  my optimum fit a girls 12-14 (as in little girls because the height and bone structure I have is more like an American young teen). Mom wore a US women's size 1-2 tall because she was 5'10". This means we are supposed to be tiny people and at 5'3", I have been called that. But I try to be healthy and have a proportion that is natural to me. If I eat too much I will look fatter than my 5'6" medium boned friends. I now live in the US and the pressure to fit society's standards while still eating an American diet is what's unhealthy. I just want to be me and allow others to be them. Artificial photo manipulation skews what society wants and makes being ourselves so difficult. The first thing I prefer to see on a person is a smile. Their size is their own and not my business.

What you have referred to as "the bony definition" here isn't bone, it's Cameron's oblique muscle showing through. While she is thin, the reason she keeps getting photoshopped like this is because she has visible musculature and looks too "harsh" and lean for standards of femininity (hence the fact they made her cheekbones less apparent). The rest of the things that are supposedly different (thighs etc- MAYBE her left hip has been enlarged, to give a more hourglass look) are close to unseeable with the naked eye. The problem for magazines isn't "she's too thin", but "she looks too muscular and athletic". Cameron is pretty well known for this, with people endlessly debating if you can see her abs/obliques too much for her to be attractive, it's really something anyone should have known before trying to do this.

Edit: honestly i'm perplexed by how many people think that's her pelvic bone. When pelvic bones stick out, its only visible from the front at the sides, due to the fact the back of the pelvis isn't significantly higher up than the front to cause the effect seen in the picture. The line on Cameron here goes all the way back and is very obviously due to her large obliques. As a skinny slob I can tell you that having jutting hipbones won't cause that effect without the muscularity.

Those are Diaz's hip muscles, not her hip bones.  So I imagine that part was also photoshopped out to make her appear less masculine.  

this is a ridiculous comparison and a ridiculous critique. The shifts they made through retouching are NOT over the top at all. Clearly, Cameron Diaz takes amazing care of herself, and the publishers did what was tantamount to make-up and a push-up bra. Get off your high horse people. If you want to be outraged... there is a hell of a lot more in life you can be outraged over.

Cameron Diaz is really the perfect example here. In There's Something About Mary her character is the ideal because, although she looks like a model, she goes gaga over junk food! And the media seems torn over her body that, while lithe, occasionally shows the unattractive consequences of surfing and working out– actual biceps and a flat chest. What a life.

Hlurgh, I was triggered by this post, can we maybe have a warning? Also, whether you're trying to be body shaming or not, you've managed it. Would it be all right if you said "Look at all these fatties that are getting retouched so that you can't see the consequences of extreme fatness!" or would it sound like you were saying "Because extreme fatness is just GROSS, amirite,"? A quick apology at the end of the post feels a lot like a "Sorry you were offended!" rather than a genuine "Sorry". We don't know which of models just happen to be that shape, which ones are starving themselves, and which ones are thin for other reasons.

I was one of those "unnatural" rail-thin AFAB people growing up, and I'm now one of those unnatural rail-thin genderqueer folk, although we probably appear in less magazines. I was shamed about my skinny, bony, all-ribs-and-scapulae-and-iliac-crests body from going to school at five, to leaving it at eighteen (By which point I'd managed to put on a fair amount of muscle, but getting a sensible covering of padding to hide my bones still eluded me), and even though I now force myself to drink protein shakes after every meal, I'm still never going to have a "normal, healthy" body. I freeze in winter, feel hungry no matter how much I eat (9000 calories or £15 a day of food, whichever is cheaper), and have to live with a constant barrage of people nebbing about whether or not I'm ill (I have "collarbones like coathangers", "dark circles under eyes", "protruding ribs" and all the other things you mark out as being signs of deliberate starvation, rather than just expensive bad luck.) Being told by a really well respected blog that I'm just being silly to hear my appearance described in terms of being grotesque, and that I should just take away the points about the fashion industry without being hurt by it, is really shitty.

Also, in the picture from Numero, they've not only edited out her prominent ribcage, they've also edited out her rather well-defined lats - So they're not only disguising that she's thin, but also that she's powerful.

This editorial received a lot of attention last fall.  Also, the photographer released an official statement to a New York Times-affiliated blog speaking out against the magazine editors' decision to photoshop the image:

"It was Greg's desire to represent Karlie as she naturally is ...
slender, athletic and beautiful. That is why he released the images as
he intended them to be seen by the public. He is shocked and dismayed
that unbeknownst to him, Numéro took it upon themselves to
airbrush over his original images. Greg stands by his original artwork
and cannot stress enough that he not only was unaware of the magazine's
retouching but also finds the airbrushing of Karlie unacceptable and
unnecessary."

I think part of the issue goes back to the talent management. Weight requirements are extreme in relationship to what is "natural", in that a 5'8" to 6'0" model is expected to weigh between 90 and 100lbs according to models.com. This is insane. Blame the talent and management agencies, particularly Ford, which sets most of the modeling size trends.

I range from size 8 to 10 in women's and my ribs stick out like that and sometimes my actual hip bones stick out unlike Camerons muscles. We all have different shapes. I'm with the commenters that ask: is it really so hard to find models who look nice in the clothes they are modeling. I have skinny (small, bony, frail, petite, whatever) family and friends that look great in some pieces. And curvy, plump, fat (whatever you call it) friends who look good in other pieces. So hire a wider range of folks already fashion industry and if you don't like our protruding rib cages then put the models with that shape in more clothes... 

Karlie, before or after, her body really looks bad. It's not normal

So hire healthy models...

I would be more supportive of this if there wernt so many condescending tones towards thin people, but in any case.Modelling is art, photoshopping is a tool, women shouldn't aspire to be a model like that no more than they would want to develop super strength by reading wonder woman.

Let's be fair, body size at either end of the spectrum isn't an indicator of health.

Whether they are thin "naturally" or because of the desire to achieve a culturally thinness, I think none of these bodies are UGLY, and agree that calling any of them ugly is only a reflection of the reason for which girls desire to achieve that thinness: patriarchy!!! Girls haven't chosen being then because they have never seen how "ugly" thin can be any more than they have chosen to be thin because they supposedly see how "ugly" being fat can be; in other words none of it is about women's bodies! Women aren't thin (or desire thinness) because there is anything inherently ugly about being fat OR being thin. It is about patriarchy. Shaming ANY thin woman or ANY fat woman is about shaming ALL woman. It does not matter if that thinness (or fatness for that matter) is 'natural'. What matters is shaming *any* body, for *any* reason. I absolutely believe that seeing real bodies is essential to a healthy self-image, and we need to call into question the retouching of women's bodies, but including the quote “[n]o wonder women yearn to be super-thin when they never see how ugly [super-]thin can be" as "insightful" is just disappointing. Super thin is not ugly. "Super fat" is not ugly. Women's bodies are what they are, whatever the reasons. Let's not critique the bodies, let's critique the system.

Super thin models are the result of decades of high fashion demanding uniform standard coat rack sizes so they could walk the runaway, making it one size fits all for designers. But those days are long gone. Now the mass market of ready wear makes this practice obsolete. I'm curious why the torture persist. Then again, high fashion has always harbored more than a hint of sadomasochism. Hey, Lisa Wade, why don't you also write about Kate Upton? Nobody is retouching her much! She's a shinning example of the new breed of models who come camera ready, just like Jessica Rabbit.

The editor who re-touched Karlie did a superb job with the Clone Stamp tool.Who needs personal health when you have Photoshop. :)

Just because their bodies may or may not have been unnaturally acquired still doesn't give you the right to demean or police their bodies. Besides, you don't know that all of them "chose" to look that way, unless you think you can just go around stereotyping all models as being mindless zombies to the "beauty ideal." Seriously, low blow. And for the record, eating disorders are real things too, and they are not choices. You do not know someone's life story from their body type--whether they were born that way, chose to be that way, or suffered great mental illness. Nor do you know someone's priorities from their profession.

Is lightning the color of the skin no worth mentioning anymore?

This article is a terrible case of body shaming. Some girls are naturally that thin. Not everyone has to starve themselves and many of them are healthy. Heaven only knows i eat and eat and eat and i still have a "flat ass" and "pigeon chest". And my doctor has never been conserned for my health. Can you imaine how much trouble youd be in if you posted the same article critiquing the flaws of overweight women?

an idea: let's stop shaming people for their bodies. all people. all bodies. picking apart a body that is too thin is STILL picking apart a body. you can call underweight women "ugly" or "frightening," or whatever unflattering descriptive you choose until you've made your point as clear as it can be-- too skinny = not pretty. okay. got it. however, doing so will not stop the millions of normal weight/underweight/overweight women (and men, sorry guys) out there from engaging in unhealthy behavior in the pursuit of some unattainable ideal.

it is nice to see that there are people out there who recognize that being too thin can be bad, but articles like these aren't going to help to mend ANYONE'S relationship with food/bodies/weight. no one can deny the "consequences of extreme thinness"-- which, by the
way, are so much more damaging than the photos of too-thin women
featured in this article could ever capture. but we really need to take a step back and realize that these are actual people we are dissecting when we reduce a picture of someone to a list of body parts ("face, bust, thighs, hip," etc). what exactly does this article accomplish?

and yes, i see that an edit has been made to the original article stating that policing all bodies is bad. but it continues to defend that this is somehow less bad because these women are not "naturally" thin, they have 'shaped their bodies into this.' well, whether these women are "naturally" underweight-- or underweight due to years of excessive dieting in response to f-ed up cultural norms, or due to eating disorders ('rooted' in something substantially more complex than photoshopping),-- is entirely irrelevant. i would argue that women who are products of a f'd up society are no more at fault than women who happen to be naturally 'too thin.'

it's important to realize that women stuck in a cycle of dieting aren't maliciously "working hard on their bodies" to put forth an unattainable ideal and make other people feel bad. they, too, exist within a cultural framework that is so much more powerful than they are. and they are people-- dissecting their bodies is no less wrong/counterproductive.

I was hoping for more pictures to analyze before hopping onto this witch-hunt.

Diaz works out like crazy - and I see that line as a reward to her efforts. It's sad that they took it out to make her look like she is just "naturally thin".

So the first half of you career, you perpetuated a harmful myth; then when you saw the horrible result on the next generation, you continued to perpetuate the myth.

Sounds like you have a strong moral compass...