Britney Spears has done a new ad campaign for Candies, but this is not just one more in their long relationship. Word is she didn't want to appear retouched. You'll see below why that was an absolute no-go on its own, so the shoe company offered to devote a part of their campaign to a split screen ad only vaguely about shoes (about the shoes, there is one cute pair in the gallery after this article).

[caption id="attachment_3020" align="alignnone" width="360" caption="Before half of the frontal "before and after" spread"][/caption]

The new Spears/Candies move is in the wake of the year-old French Elle with no make-up, this month's Marie Claire boasting the same (with Jessica Simpson, picture included in article), paired with numerous "photoshop" scandals that leave real women --- readers and followers of these publications and stars --- insulted and brimming with criticism.

This particular version of an un-retouched star is somewhat reminiscent of the very accidental slip of a brief Internet publishing of a pre-retouched, blotchy Kim Kardashian. While Kim quickly blogged that she loves her real body, she nearly as quickly changed that body, slimming down in the gym. That move obviously hurt the curvy/love-yourself cause and is plainly quite aggravating - so it does paint Britney's original, along with her intentions, in a beautiful light.

The major difference to this boldly publicized "before" is that there is no way the original could have been published anywhere aside from a tabloid or to support this cause. It's not due to flab, Britney's looking slim, but due to mere general flaws.

[caption id="attachment_3021" align="alignnone" width="298" caption="Candies' retouched version. (Ours is below, we hope you like it better.)"][/caption]

Last Tuesday, fashion bloggers were ahhing over the novelty of photos so honestly-unretouched, while it seems other publications & media outlets buzzed over her camel toe (in even the retouched version, by the way - above).

While it is refreshing to see a celebrity with true flaws (Oh I just mean the leg bruising probably from a rigorous dance routine, no insult here -- oh wait, and nasty feet, sorry Brit but it's true). What makes it especially refreshing right now is this "coming out" is in a world where perfect 10s make "unretouched" / "un-made-up" (yeah right) magazine covers and those create oohs and even some refreshed sighs.

Even more important than refreshing is that these images can be used to support the simpler acts of photoshopping/retouching, while also still pointing out the cruel eyes that guide hands to change women into fairy tale beings we don't want parading in front of our daughters.

Using the two Candies' front shots as examples, there's nothing wrong with Spears' shape, the beauty issue lies with the coloring and details of her legs and feet. (OK I might be harsh on feet.)

The Candies' marketer/graphic artist still went to extremes to shrink Britney, in addition to the acceptable-in-some-cases* smoothing of her skin. They gave her a 12-year-old's waist and stick legs where Britney's real-life tone is actually a badge. And how dare they lean down her perfect-for-28 slim yet womanly arms?

Yes, the extent is "normal" and arguably to prove a point, but it's not just to prove that point, these moves would have been made regardless.

Of course certain artistic photos and glamorous, swirling advertisements require more perfectly smooth and glistening skin - these things are about image, idealism, want. They correspond with equally or moreso false backgrounds, so what can we really expect? I bet we do want superhuman images, sometimes.

I still see a problem when it's a celebrity vs. a model, though. A face and body so well-known, especially in the days of tabloids, suddenly or sometimes appearing altered to an ideal is very unsettling to real humans, especially women. Possibly worst of all is it is damaging to young girls' self-esteem and development at a time when mental health is a more serious concern than any other point in life.

I decided to have fun and do some retouching of my own

to serve as a better example of appropriate ways to alter a star. I did go an extra mile and accentuate a smaller waist, but mostly to only show what is acceptable, and I think this is the farthest that should be gone.

Unfortunately I've realized these photoshop artists must be serious nerds who pore over literally every pore, trying to create their fantasy women. Fellas, if this is true and you, that could be why you might have trouble with women. Aside from your flawed desires, it's not you, it's your view of them.

Of course in reality the profession is mixed with money-hungry marketing-savvy people who just cannot stop until they've seen beyond perfection. Trust me, I understand the need to pick, but it must stop. In this case, the perfectionism is not an art - it's just evil business.

A fun Discovery program, Science of Sex Appeal, discussed the ideal female waist to hip ratio in terms of male attraction. By waist to hip, we're talking visually from the front so there's no worry about measuring your gut to see if you, well, measure up (or down). Not in this case.

[caption id="attachment_2833" align="alignright" width="210" caption="Marilyn Monroe seemed to have an excellent .67 score in Waist to Hip (see our shoenote)"] [/caption]

The ideal ratio, confirmed by studies like one from Harvard University, is a fairly curvy 7 to 10. That's about what I have, and I've no waify waist. In fact, just a defined one, big hips ... and let's not, no do, forget that gut.

Oddly the TV program sort of ignored the very wide hip demographic when discussing how an even smaller and yet even smaller waist compared to the hips were visually hotter to guys. A 6-and-lower to 10 ratio was said to be inhuman (or perhaps it wasn't until as low as 5, but that was the gist). Odd because even though cartoon-character waists are either unhealthy or literally unreal, there are a heck of a lotta big hips out there, which can turn into a 7 to 11 on up. Same extra sexiness, right?*

So worry not, if you've got 'em, rejoice. Conversely if you're worried that, even if your stomach is flat, your waist is not defined enough - you can always add some fat to your love handle or thigh areas. ;-)

Or at least that's the way I see it. Gosh if thigh counts and not just padded hip bones, then I'm hotter than Marilyn Monroe, pictured. ;-) I newly love my thighs, or at least most of them.

[caption id="attachment_2846" align="alignnone" width="380" caption="Esteem-spiration!"][/caption]

I've also recently discovered that even with some "flab" and cellulite, I really do have great legs, not just calves. And look at my relatively thin akles!

You, too, should look at your body with a positive attitude. Find something to feel good about today, and hopefully you'll feel great tomorrow and the next day and .......

ShoeNote:

*I asked a more math-inclined individual and he mentioned something about how .6 is better than .7 (getting those numbers is easy, deriving from a blank to 10 ratio). He said 7 to 11 is still lower than .7. It only makes sense, but I wanted to check.

Point out how TINY Demi Moore is!

• She's smaller than a 10-year-old boy!
• But with some more boob.
• I think she had a surgeon remove half her lungs! Like the right or left half, then moved the rest into the center. Adult lungs cannot fit into that torso.
• (What surgeon would do that? Heidi Montag's.)
• I think she's allergic to fat. She might just literally have 0% body fat.
• Her head is huge! My monitor now looks 3D and it's scary! She's coming at me - like she will eat me - she might be that hungry...
• Everything's 3D these days, maybe this old-butt monitor got some secret ninja upgrade. But that's a side worry.
• Demi should never, ever actually be in one of those 3D movies that are ubiquitously upcoming. Hm, she might not have a career in 5 years. Too scary. Especially scary is where the world is going! But that's a side terror.
• This picture totally looks photoshopped. Her head looks pasted like a bad celeb "fake" - if you know what I mean.

Now, if you care about fashion, and I hope you do...

Above you can see what I was referring to in the so-couture randomness of the bodice wrapping. Di-vine.

Well, I guess that's all about fashion, so I'll just leave you after quickly going back to the first ramble-topic: in a world with Demi Moore, no wonder Lara Stone feels fat.

Photo via Shoe-a-Day.

A new hair style is one of the best ways to do trends. Why? Hair is usually changed every couple to a few months, that means you can update your style with the season, and also not be late to the game. You don't have to worry about Winter when Autumn is approaching, either - and that allows for some ease and a lot of fun.

Of course trends never have to be drastic, especially with hair. But what else is so easy about looking current with your tresses is you can wear anything, and depending on the styling-time, always look fresh on "top". If you want to be instantly recognized as stylish, whether you work in fashion or just like that appearance, this change can make that happen.

But there need be "signature" hair looks for a season, and not just the typical clothing/accessories stuff. And of course you've got to either know the 'do trends or research, so I'm doing that for you now.

Autumn 2009 Hair Cut Trends:

- Whether one has straight or curly hair, above-shoulder lengths that are drastically longer toward the front are popping up everywhere.
- Right now is a safer time (maybe) to dare for bangs - simply because they're in!
- Keep it long:

• - Upgraded braids. Mix braids in with looser, other-styled or "down" hair to make it more grown-up and today.
• - Or you could just keep it long and loose and still be trendy. Try accessorizing or home-curling for some variety.

What about color? I wouldn't suggest switching color for a trend, but while we're still recessionistas, I'm calling the go-natural a trend. Unless you hate your color or your grey, I think born-with is always most beautiful.

Photos: 1, 2, 3

If you didn't hear, Michelle Obama's recent 'do was a sort-of-did. It's the temporary up-do now called the "Tuck Up". Read the story here on Pursed Lips.

Tools:

We know this style seems extremely difficult to pull off, but maybe not! Here are the instructions. (Via the Canadian Press.)

"It's super simple," says Amy Farid, editorial stylist at Manhattan's Bumble and Bumble salon. "You probably need some layers in your hair if you don't want it to look like a bun. Around here, we call it 'the faux bob.'"

Basically you make a loose ponytail, twist and roll it, she explains, and pretty much anyone with hair longer than the chin can do it."

Farid lays out the steps:

• If you have just-above-the-shoulder hair with a few waves like Obama, pull the hair into a ponytail, twist it and tuck it under the nape of the neck. Use bobby pins, positioned into Xs, to secure the hair.
• If you have long hair, make a loose, low ponytail, then roll it and tuck it under.
• For very fine hair, try teasing (just a bit) the portion of the hair above the ponytail. Conversely, for very thick hair, pull down on some of the top hair and also secure the ends under the roll, probably using hairpins.

"Do" or a Don't, It Might Matter Less. Michelle's Short Style is TEMPORARY...

Bloggers get a lot of flack for posting unfactual information, but at least we have the excuse of lacking resources and contacts. In a Google News search, I'm unsure how to weed blogs from newspapers, but if you try, you will find actual news/big media publishing commentary (hmm journalistic commentary? Oxymoron? I guess we're all just bloggers these days, some just have the luck of more respect!) on the First Lady's "cut" - no questions asked.

No interviews done.

That is, not at first. Mrs. O's stylist, Johnny Wright, has spoken "up" now, about his style-to-the-stars temporary up-do: The "Tuck Up". We don't quite understand it, but we're researching more, and will have a How-To-'Do coming up next!

The interview was given to, and news broken by, Us Weekly. Whom Best Week Ever wants to give a journalism award (yep, to a near-tabloid, chuckle). The BWE post's comedic writer basically claims he's traumatized for life by Hair Gate! Seriously amusing!

Hey, humans are human, no matter the job. So I fault none (not really) for publishing opinion and alerts on this beauty matter. But I also know even style & political icons are people as well. I actually am kind of frustrated with the ease in which we judge. That hair was cute!

Of course we still remember Barack's "Dad" Jeans ... quickly followed by Michelle's "Mom" Cut (and again, they're mature parents/professionals, not rockstars). Why so harsh on the first family when it comes to style? What - no scandals? I guess this is a blessing.

Lara Stone is busty (left, for Prada) but in the 2nd photo
more stick than full figured with jutting hip bones.

I'm about to depart a bit from my usual "Ella" demure professionalism today in this rant. (Warning: it bad language will show up further down the page.) Still somehow when I'm sick with upset, surprisingly, eloquence conquers more through lyrical prose. So you'll now receive oddly & seemingly-schemed poetic flow with the partial drawback of - well, a hissy fit? At least you can not see the temper tantrum I feel inside me wanting to break out. But it is not masterminded; it is a gift (in my opinion, as I like my style). Perhaps I am blessed in my strangeness, but I digress too much.

I'm weary, bleary, hungry and rife with personal strife currently. It'll be OK soon, don't worry - life happens. OK I'm still a lady, yes, I didn't cuss. But later on, I know the bitch me will surface - and Ella even refers to that as a chienne or female dog instead of the B word! (Oh my.) But it is a part of me. I won't deny it as a woman it is in me. Hear me roar. And that's not anti-feminist. (Men can be worse - or just plain bitches themselves. Maybe that's un-PC. Maybe it's human.)

On to the "story"... So model and it-girl hype ... I never follow it. You might know that. I don't care if you care not for it. But of course I do try to keep up with a lot of fashion article reading whenever I can. I'm not mad when bloggers follow business-as-usual whereas it's my nemesis - so the source of this news does not matter. Oh it does as a link source, of course, I happily oblige - I mean just that I mean no offense. Who does not chatter - amongst the trendy writers - of trends, news, current... That's fine, as "fine" is defined.

But back on topic, this happens to mean, yes-I've heard buzz of Lara Stone and her status in the modeling world. Whatever.

But her very popularity (or is it sheer f...abbing presence on top catwalks?) is marked as exceptional to the modeling biz. Why? Because she's a size 4. Yes, 4, or 6 on bloated days. But models are "supposed to be" a 0 or 2. So she's heralded as "curvier" or worse "fuller figured".

View our Gallery from W Magazine's August issue declaring Stone Fashion's IT Girl. Our Ttitle: Beauty or the Beast?

The real thing, true visual difference, between Lara and her runway colleagues (not all models, mostly just runway) is that her breasts are 2 1/2 sizes more grown than her nearly A peers. Her bust is reportedly a C cup.

Quel shock! Alert the press! She's got it gets juicy from here...