Yep, Kelly Clarkson‘s cover shot for this month’s Self was Photoshopped, says Editor-in-Chief Lucy Danzinger. So what?

What some took to be Self‘s attempt to hide Clarkson’s curvy frame Danzinger simply defended as commonplace clean-up. In a blog post yesterday, Danzinger said the retouching to Clarkson’s photo was simply meant to enhance the beauty of the shot and sell magazines, not detract from Clarkson’s “amazing spirit” and “contagious confidence.”

Here’s how she described the post-production process that follows every cover shot:

“[W]e edit the film and choose the best pictures. This is done in tandem with the star; the creative director, Cindy Searight; the photographer; and myself. Then we allow the postproduction process to happen, where we mark up the photograph to correct any awkward wrinkles in the blouse, flyaway hair and other things that might detract from the beauty of the shot. This is art, creativity and collaboration. It’s not, as in a news photograph, journalism. It is, however, meant to inspire women to want to be their best. That is the point.”

We understand the need to clean up wrinkles and flyaway hair, but Clarkson’s photo seems to have helped the pop star shed some pounds. Although she didn’t say exactly what was edited on Clarkson, Danzinger stood by the picture’s accuracy. Or rather, she said the accuracy didn’t really matter for a cover photo.

“Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best,” Danzinger said. “Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that.”

What do you think? How far is too far when it comes to Photoshopping — for cover photos and other photos as well? Do you think cover photographs are journalism?

Pictures that please us Lucy’s Blog

Yesterday, there was news that The New York Times had removed an online photo gallery from its Web site due to allegations that the photos had been digitally altered. Today, the story is still developing.

Late yesterday, the Times added more information to their editor’s note accompanying the removed gallery. According to the updated note, the original introduction to the photo feature, which appeared in the magazine last Sunday as well as online as a slide show, explicitly said that photographer Edgar Martins “creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation.” However, despite the paper’s claims, the photos did end up being manipulated. As the editor’s note explains:

“A reader, however, discovered on close examination that one of the pictures was digitally altered, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Editors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show. Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay, which has been removed from NYTimes.com.”

Today, the Times Lens blog has a longer explanation about the incident. The blog reveals that the Times does not accept any types of digital manipulation in the photos that it publishes — except for cropping. (We wonder if this same policy applies to fashion photographs in the Style section or T magazine.)

So we’re still left wondering. Why did Martins do it?