Hollywood trades in dreams and sometimes reality just doesn’t live up to the fantasy. And when it doesn’t, editors turn to Photoshop. This computer program has taken an improbable standard of beauty to an impossible place, and as a result, these celebrities have been digitally nipped, tucked and transformed into images that are almost unrecognizable.

Source: Instagram

Instagram has gotten many a celeb in trouble, but usually it’s not over something as seemingly innocent as a photo app filter. Enter Dawn Richard who, for the last 24 hours, has been fighting off rumors she’s been lightening her skin and got a nose job after she posted some pics to her Instagram account that, honestly, look absolutely nothing like her.

The photo above was just one of the suspect pics uploaded by the former Bad Boy singer who has been outspoken about the industry pressure on brown girls. Last summer in an interview with Carlton Jordan, she said:

I always say I represent for the brown girls because when you think of a sex symbol and a huge artist, most of the time it isn’t the brown, darker girl. And I’m not dark or even a chocolate girl, but there should be more because there is no color to greatness.

Everybody has their own story…I just know what my journey has been so I only speak on it from what I know and I do know it was a difficult road being this color and having the edge that I have— short hair, the body—it’s different. It isn’t your idea of pretty for people and it’s uncomfortable for them and I like it.

Some of Dawn’s Instagram followers seemed to be getting the message that Dawn’s looks were starting to become uncomfortable for her too, because it wasn’t long after her uploads starting posting that she was hit with comments like:

deanellw: Dawnnnnn what did u do to your face? Please do not tell me u are lightening it up.. When will people understand that black is beautiful … You are so beautiful

hissoulmate7 @deanellw: When black media stops promoting the whole light skin is the right skin mentality. We can sing beautiful dark skin all day but black media is obsessed with redbone yellabone. I have read comments in the past that dawn can sing but she is too darkskin. Im sure she heard enough of this bulls**t that she decided to thin her nose and lighten her skin. It’s sad but that’s reality in the industry

Shutting all of that down, Dawn explained to her following that the real culprit here was Instagram filtering and not self-hatred, responding to the commenters with:

dawnrichard @hissoulmate7: yo it’s a filter lol. Why are y’all doing the most lol. 
dawnrichard @deanellw: no babe just pressed the filter button like every other human that has Instagram
dawnrichard: I’m saying tho. If I really got work. I would have went for my tits First Those need help more than anything lol 

Well it’s good to see she’s taking the backlash all in stride, although her reaction was a bit more snarky on Twitter, with her posting:

Behahahahaha.. Filter is the new bleach. I mean it’s cheaper tho I guess … Photoshop does wonders and seems to start Isht too.

— Dawn Richard / NEON (@DawnRichard) March 20, 2013

Guess I need to bleach my music too.. — Dawn Richard / NEON (@DawnRichard) March 20, 2013

She might wanna slow up on that IG filter though and stick with the natural pics she’s used to — not even so much for the fact that she looks light and bright, but more so that she’s nearly unrecognizable. Check out some more of the pics she posted on the next few pages. What do you think about this pic drama?

You know Wendy Williams. She never shies away from throwing shade at any celebrity she can. It’s all for the ratings boo. The latest celeb to come under attack is none other than the Queen B, Lil Kim.  In promotion of her Hot Topics segment, Wendy tweeted a video of her talking about Lil Kim’s dramatic transformation, through what she claims is plastic surgery. Here’s the picture. And it’s not a flattering one.

Source: Wendy Williams

Well, naturally she @ mentioned Lil Kim. And she did not appreciate it. She had this to say to Wendy in response.

Source: Twitter

This is the picture Lil Kim put up as evidence that Wendy toyed with her image for ratings. Perhaps Lil Kim has not seen the thousands of other “photoshopped” pics of her floating around the net…but I digress.

Source: Twitter

Then Lil Kim went for the jugular, exposing a bit of personal information about the talk show host.

Source: Twitter

Whoop! Messy.

Apparently, Lil Kim is not playing with Wendy anymore.

Source: Twitter

Well dang!

Though Wendy has yet to respond to Lil Kim, it’ll be interesting to see whether or not she addresses Lil Kim’s accusation on her show tomorrow. What do you think about the one-sided beef between Wendy and Kim?

Winston Burris/WENN.com

Lil Kim is sick and tired of people taking advantage of her and trying to make fun of her.  In fact, she’s not taking it anymore.

On Friday, Kim filed a $1 million lawsuit against her former lawyer and his business partner over shady business practices, that according to the NY Daily News.

In the suit filed in New York, Kim claims that Sunny Barkats convinced her to sign into contracts that gave Barkats and his partner, Andrew Ro, a 44 percent stake in a company that would license her brand names (likely “Lil Kim,” “Queen Bee” and others).

While it hasn’t been released about when she signed into this deal, Kim said she figured out something was wrong in December 2012; however, Barkats wouldn’t let her out of the deal. For his part, Barkats said the lawsuit is frivolous and just a way for Kim to get out of the contracts.

In other Kim news… the 38 year old rapper let loose on the paparazzi and bloggers whom she claims are trying to ruin her image by photoshopping images of her.

On Wednesday, Kim made an appearance on MTV’s RapFix Live with Sway to promote her new artist, Tiffany Foxx. Of course, the blogs got hold of pictures of Kim as she was coming and going and posted them with some “harsh” criticism of how she looks. Well, according to Kim, the pictures made her look lighter, bigger and just all around different…and she was steaming. Like, all celebs, Kim took to Twitter to air it all out:

Twitter

I mean, okay, most of us actually have seen pictures of Kim that makes her look a lot worse than she actually does. But unfortunately, she’s the one whose made so many alterations to her face that people just feel the need to play around with her looks now.  However, Kim has a right to be mad if she’s made to look terribly different.

Oh Kim, it’ll be okay girl.

WENN.com

Even though the Academy Awards were last Sunday, we’ve learned quite a bit throughout the week about the people nominated, involved with the show and who just happened to show up. For instance, who knew that there was all this Anne Hathaway hate? Seriously, what’s up with a “Hathahater”?? Also we learned that Jack Nicholson is a bit creepy when it comes to the young gyals (just ask new Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence). And of course, some people weren’t too pleased with seeing Michelle Obama at the show, presenting the Best Picture award at the end of the night for the Ben Affleck directed movie Argo.

An Iranian news agency wasn’t feeling her gorgeous gown, so they Photoshopped her dress to make her look more covered, but mostly, the usual bitter suspects didn’t think she should have presented at all (even if she wasn’t physically at the show) because she has nothing to do with Hollywood. One Conservative we saw on a morning show this week said her appearance made the White House look “small.”

Haters. All of them.

Anywho, while making press stops to get people enthusiastic about her Let’s Move Campaign, an initiative to combat childhood obesity, on Today she commented on all the critics who always seem to have something to say about every move she makes.

“That’s just the nature of life. I mean, we live in a time when there are bloggers and tweeters and 24-hour news and everyone has a voice in this town square, and it’s a big one. That means at any point at a given time, somebody’s not going to like what you do. That’s the nature of things. It’s not really about me. I just happen to be in the public eye and along with everybody else in the public eye, you’re subject to conversation, opinion and all that sort of stuff. There’s nothing new about that.”

That Michelle, always keeping it cool as a cucumber. And from checking out the comments to her response via E! News, I can tell most of the people griping about her showing up at the Oscars are the same people who gripe about her doing everything else. From the clothes she wears to the places she goes and just being fabulous and chilling in the White House with her husband for a second term that they clearly didn’t want to see happen. I’m glad that the FLOTUS realizes that somebody is ALWAYS going to have something to say, but while they waste time doing that, you just have to continue to do you. Boom! Take that “critics.”

Talk about not being able to take a joke! Georgia State Representative Earnest G. Smith is so upset about someone Photoshopping his head onto a rather attractive, adult video star that he is ready to create legislation that makes creating trashy photoshopping illegal and punishable with up to a $1,000 fine. (Cue the laugh track please.)

According to CNet.com Andre Walker, who created the kinky photo, has lawyered up and is ready to fight on the premise of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech rights.

However, Mr. Smith made his sentiments clear about the defense stating to Fox News, “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right.” With that logic, first graders everywhere will be in handcuffs.

The sad part about this whole thing is that this guy is actually serious. The idea was sparked about a year ago after a girl fell victim to online bullying. The initial idea was to make it a misdemeanor to cause “an unknowing person wrongfully to be identified as the person in an obscene depiction.” It’s interesting that this “idea” for action on pranksters only became the center of attention when he was the butt of the joke.

It’s definitely a serious situation when someone is bullied and abused, whether they are an adult or a child. In those cases, we have to take the time in our communities to discourage this type of behavior through compassion and community awareness and not attempt to place a ban on our rights in a free society.

In the case of State Rep. Smith, he just needs to get over it.

Local 10

I think I’m more offended by the stupidity of this move than by any type of underlying racial insensitivity some think it implies.

Somehow, when the parents of a second grade student at Sawgrass Elementary School in Florida failed to sign a consent form for their son’s picture to appear in a class photo, a cartoon image of a brown boy Photoshopped on his real body was the best thing a photographer could come up with. Now, not only are the child’s parents upset, so is the school’s principal.

It seems David Claussen and his wife, who own Broward County Pictures and have been in the school picture-taking business for 37 years, are to blame—although David says the last thing he wanted to do was offend anyone.

According to him, a liaison with the Parent Teacher’s Association that helped organize the photo shoot notified them that two of the students pictured needed to be removed because their parents did not sign a consent form. David was able to use Photoshop to lift one of the kids out, but explained that there was a problem with the second student because he was right in the middle of the front row.

David said he offered to come back to the school to reshoot the image, but instead there was a discussion about putting a star over the boy’s face, but then the PTA came up with the brilliant idea to to use a smiley face. David, who said he’s never received a request like that before, even had notes from the discussion on what he was to do.

The school’s own principal reportedly didn’t even see the picture until she got a copy along with all the other parents who ordered prints on Friday afternoon. Her assistant told the Local 10 news she was outraged and ordered a new picture be taken this week.

The news station also tried to get in touch with the boy’s parents but were unsuccessful; and another parent at the school said he was no longer a student at Sawgrass, although privacy regulations prohibit the school from revealing that information.

A spokesman for the school calls the entire incident an oversight, as the boy shouldn’t have sat for a photo if he hadn’t turned in a consent form. And another parent sent in a written statement to Local 10, defending the school:

“This is a great school and should not be tarnished by negative publicity that is being misinterpreted for anything more than it is…an oversight that has been corrected. This class teacher is an excellent teacher, the administration is very responsive.”

At the very least, the PTA leader who signed off on this needs to go. This is just foolish. What do you think about this incident?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• 7 Early Signs Of They Jealous Type
• Juicy Details, Please: 7 Autobiographies We’d Love To Read
• 7 Men To Run From When Online Dating
• Let’s Put An End To Nose Contouring – For Good
• “Shaunie O’Neal Says She’s Too Old For Jen And Evelyn’s Drama
• Did Kerry Washington Deserve The Vanity Fair Cover?
• Unorthodox Religion: Pastor Puts Stripper Pole In Pulpit To Curb Members’ Lascivious Ways
• “Ask A Black Man” Cast – Meet Devale Ellis

Just in case someone actually thought their lashes would look like Taylor Swift’s do in a new Cover Girl mascara campaign, Proctor & Gamble (P&G), the manufacturer behind the brand, pulled it.

In the ad for CoverGirl NatureLuxe Mousse Mascara, Taylor’s eyelashes have been enhanced to look even fuller than natural, causing the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to rule that the ad was misleading.

The NAD asked P&G to verify claims that the mascara has two times more volume versus bare lashes and is 20 percent lighter than the most expensive mascara. The division also noted “implied messages” that consumers who use the product “would get lashes like those depicted in the advertisement and that the lashes depicted in the photograph were achieved solely by using [the mascara]…without post-production enhancement.”

I’m all for truth in advertising, but I don’t think anyone really expects their eyelashes to look like the ones on the models in print ads. Taylor’s lashes actually look less enhanced than some I’ve seen in other advertisements. Maybelline better watch out next.

Women’s bodies have gone from needing extreme photoshopping to be considered attractive in magazines, catalogs, and any other medium, to not being acceptable at all. H&M has admitted that the bodies of most of the models featured on its website are computer-generated and “completely virtual.” Don’t worry–the heads are real, when they remember to include them.

As Jezebel points out in their story, what’s next? Pretty soon women’s faces won’t be considered attractive enough. There’s already plenty of digital alteration to make women’s cheek bones higher, or their nose thinner, or their eyes further apart, why not just create virtual faces we all can aspire to have and never achieve, too. Although H&M has exposed it’s dirty little digitally altered secret, I don’t consider this truth in advertising. If you want to sell women clothing online—especially a bathing suit—we should at least be able to see what it looks like on a real body.  I’m even curious how the models must feel when they see even their bodies aren’t deemed good enough to sell the company’s clothes. Is there any wonder why women struggle so much with self esteem?

Do you think H&M has gone too far by using computer-generated bodies for models? Is this a sign that advertising trends will continue to lean towards more photoshopping rather than less, despite the push-back from consumers? Does this make you not want to buy H&M’s clothes?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

Once It’s Gone It’s Gone: Can You Ever Really Reclaim Virginity?

ANTM Winner Launches Plus-Size Dating Site: Is It Necessary?

“OOoo I Just Want to Play In Your Hair”: 7 Celeb Men with Luscious Locks

How To Take Things Slow Without Losing His Interest

7 Things That Are Awesome About Breakups

Young Love: Our Celebrity Crushes From Back in the Day That Fell Off… Hard

In A League Of Their Own: Miss Black Americas

By now we all know that when we see a celebrity or model in a magazine, we’re looking at a digitally perfected image of the real person, but that doesn’t necessarily stop the damage that’s done to our psyches. Researchers at Dartmouth are attempting to limit that effect with the proposal of a software algorithm for measuring how much photos have been altered. The 1-to-5 scale would rank alterations from minimal to glaring in an effort to encourage disclosure and reduce retouching.

Seth Matlins, a former talent agent and marketing executive, told The New York Times that the metric could be “hugely important” to efforts he and his wife have underway. The founders of Off Our Chests, an online women’s magazine, are working to gain support for legislation that would require photos that have been significantly changed to be labeled as such.

“We’re just after truth in advertising and transparency,” Mr. Matlins said. “We’re not trying to demonize Photoshop or prevent creative people from using it. But if a person’s image is drastically altered, there should be a reminder that what you’re seeing is about as true as what you saw in ‘Avatar.’”

Lesley Jane Seymour, editor in chief of More, said she thinks this is a good discussion to have but readers have already become aware of the photoshop practices in print magazines, often ridiculing changes that go to far. That may be true, but having a rating right next to an altered image would minimize the potential for thoughts such as “I wish I were that skinny, or I had her nose, or my butt looked like that,” to seep in, because you’d be immediately hit with the truth that no one has that woman’s body, butt, or nose.

I think the tool is a good idea, but no doubt will receive backlash from advertisers determined to sell us all hugely unrealistic fantasies. What do you think about this idea of ranking how much a photo has been altered and labeling images? Could it significantly combat the negative messages women receive from magazine photos?

Brande Victorian is a blogger and culture writer in New York City. Follower her on Twitter at @be_vic.

More on Madame Noire!

• Differences That Are Worth Overcoming, And Those Worth Being Stubborn About
• Well You Don’t Say: 10 White Singers We Once Thought Were Black
• Breaking It Down: What Men Think of Things Women Do
• The Questions He Hopes You Never Ask
• Best New Books by African American Authors
• 9 Inconvenient Truths About Men and Cheating
• Hot Business Looks on a Tiny Budget Through Thrifting!