WHEN, last week, a panel made the claim that magazines should start carrying disclaimers about the use of airbrushing on their photos, it quickly hit the headlines.

The argument that unrealistic airbrushed images lead young women and girls to believe they cannot live up to an unreal ideal raged between psychologists and magazine editors.

As one who has felt the tender touch of the airbrush herself (the white teeth and bright eyes of that picture above owe more to Mac computers than they do Mother Nature), I am torn on the issue of airbrushing.

I am clued up enough to know that it happens – I work in the media after all. But when I look at photoshoots of stars, I still fall into the trap of comparing myself to what I know to be completely unrealistic images.

Ooh, look how smooth her forehead is. Look how full her curls are. Look at her slim hips . . . her endless legs . . . it goes on.

Whether it is the use of hair pieces in shampoo adverts or eyelash extensions on mascara promos, I know full well that you can’t always believe your eyes in the marketing world.

Last year, beauty giant Olay was criticised after wrinkles on Twiggy’s eyes were removed digitally in an ad for wrinkle cream and then there was all that fuss over the use of “natural hair extensions” in Cheryl Cole’s L’Oreal ads, although they did have the decency to carry a disclaimer saying as much.

Elsewhere, Ralph Lauren apologised to model Filippa Hamilton after over-zealous re-touching left her with a freakishly tiny waist in an advertisement for their Blue Label brand, and Kate Winslet famously lashed out after GQ magazine admitted digitally altering pictures of her.

That was seven years ago and it’s fair to say that, compared to some of the re-mastering that goes on these days, Kate’s touch-up was nothing.

Some magazines feature pictures of stars and models that are so retouched I would be surprised if their own mothers could pick them out.

I recently saw a cover shot of Sharon Stone – a woman who, as this recent photo, left, attests, was right up front when they were giving out the good genes – that looked so little like her, had it not been accompanied by the tag line “It’s Sharon Stone”, I’d never have known who it was.

And a quick flick through my glossy mags reveals at least half a dozen designers now including celebrities’ names in their campaigns.

I can only assume this is because they are worried we won’t recognise the altered images of the stars they are paying to endorse their goods.

But then what is the alternative to all this retouching?

Real pictures?

Despite the criticism of airbrushing, the fact is most people don’t really want to see that either.

And, as much as seeing a photograph of Madonna in a magazine looking younger than me might get my goat, I do like looking at beautiful things. All humans do.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a place in this world for pictures of celebrity cellulite and superstar spots, but on the cover of Vogue is not it.

Anyway, if I wanted to see real life warts and all, I wouldn’t buy glossy magazines.

I’d watch Jeremy Kyle.