First off, I'm a man. I hope I do not resemble Kim Kardashian in any real way (we have the same skin tone I suppose). Further, if you believe that someone like a Kim Kardashian should really be getting the "you go girl" treatment, I would suggest some form of radical electroshock therapy or an experimental pharmaceutical. She has no real talent, is not as hot as many women I see every day at ASU (she's hot, not model-hot), and is marrying Reggie Bush so that she will continue to be relevant long past her "due", if she ever had such a thing. The point is that there are men and women like my lil' bro that work hard (or at least, as hard as a model has to work) to maintain their bodies for modeling and such, and who have never been photoshopped. They present a very fit, very attractive, very REAL person. Not everyone is being photoshopped (IDIOT!!! ) and those that are typically are hiding small blemishes. The Kardashians and those like them represent a very real failing in American society. Maybe before you type poorly worded comments in defense of a person you don't even know, you should take a look around at our failing economy (considering America is now a tanning booth / coffee shop economy, go figure) and our dying society before attacking some very real concerns.

Magazines in general are following a trend which is that chalky blown out white liquid'fied Photoshop'd look. This will pass much like every other trend BUT the subjects will be left with time stamped images that'll never disappear on the internet. I'm sure we're paying more for the post production facility mentioned above we're using but the images are respectful and timeless.

Celebs have no say in what happens to their photos, and they are not the ones photoshopping or taking the pictures of themselves.

It seems like magazines are afraid of bodies these days.

Photoshop, the software program, is ruining the art of photography. The program was designed to have mass appeal with one intended purpose – $$$. A teenage kid can pick the software up cheaper (via educational discount) than a professional photographer – which gives the latter NO advantage over creating the end result. Actually some kids are better at it than photographers which doesn't say alot. Turning subjects into caricatures like with the Kelly Clarkson CD cover is insulting. The limited capabilities of Photoshop however leave no other option.

I'm a student of photography and a great fan when it's done right. There's a company in upstate New York with their own software – not Photoshop whose knocking down alot of A-list celebrities and entertainers. http://www.iretouchpix.com will retouch a photo and I defy anyone to find the corrections. I tried on one that was commisioned by my employer which was extensively retouched – even at 300% and the work is undetectable. That's how photo retouching should be done.

Photoshop is apart of Hollywood, dude. EVERYONE'S pictures are photoshopped. Idiots…

Then why does the FAKE WHORE have it photoshopped off?