They say the camera never lies, but does it?

My generation has grown up with the media manipulating images. Small adjustments, here and there, making a models waist smaller by a couple of centimetres or raising her eyebrows slightly. These are done in such a way that it's impossible to tell what isn't real.

Modelling is probably one of the harshest industries out there because it is all based on looks. Regardless of qualifications or personality you must be of a certain build; tall and skinny. These people starve themselves and do everything to perfect their appearance, yet it's still not good enough. For who, though? I would love to see some real looking girls on the cover of magazines. When I'm out, I see so many beautiful girls that look stunning in the flesh, without any airbrushing. So why isn't that good enough? The girls that are being airbrushed aren't unattractive without it. What kind of message does that send to young girls? Will they never be good enough either? How can an 8 year old girl understand the concept that the girls she want to be aren't real... Well, they are real but nothing like the enhanced pictures.

Demi Moore is the new face of beauty brand Helena Rubinstein. The shots for the campaign have just been released and when I first saw them, I couldn't even tell who she was because they are so overly airbrushed. Demi looks incredible for a woman of 49 and women her age would give anything to look that good, even with the recent stress she has been under but she looks nothing like herself in the new campaign.

It's quite self evident which is the airbrushed shot and which one is Demi naturally. The computer has completely rounded her jawline and she is barely recognisable, her complexion is so flawless and unnaturally youthful. Surely we should embrace ageing rather than being ashamed of it? It really is something you can't prevent and it happens to everybody, so it's hard to understand why the image is made into something absurd.

Beyoncé is known for her amazing curves but on the cover of Harper's Bazaar her thighs had been thinned so much that they were completely out of proportion with the rest of her body. 

She's probably admired as one of the most beautiful women in the music industry but if her legs were really like this it would be extremely unhealthy and it's just not achievable. 

A rather amusing example of airbrushing was Adam Levine's missing torso in Vogue. At first glance you don't necessarily notice it but with a closer look it's clear that a computer had interfered with the image.

Should airbrushing be illegal? It seems extreme but it appears to be the only way that society can move forward. Brands want to make their models look the best they can to show that their product works but surely by airbrushing the image it just causes controversy that the product obviously doesn't work. There should definitely be more restrictions so that we, the public, see more of the real thing. There's already a professional team of stylists, hairdressers and make-up artists, which the average woman doesn't have, what's the need for airbrushing too?

Dove have created a video called "The Evolution of a Model" which shows how different she looks at the beginning of the shoot and in the final photo used. This video really made me think, the difference is remarkable! 

Just remember nothing about these photos is real.

There is no positive way to "brand" someone.

It's hard to walk down the street without categorizing people. "Emo" (dark clothes, dark make-up), "gay" (styled hair), "wannabe" (fake tan, high heels) are just some of things I can hear others' minds shouting as individuals walk by. We seem to have this misconception that it's okay to judge people because they're young..when it's not. Probably the thing teens fear the most is what others think. Okay, people aren't actually shouting abuse at random youngsters but that doesn't make it any better.

Why are we all given names? Can't we all just be human? Must we be reduced to being a label? If you wear your hair in a certain way you're "scene" and your background has to determine how far you'll get. I don't see how that's possibly fair.

Cher Lloyd recently featured heavily in a programme about bullying in which she told viewers she receives at least ten tweets per day calling her a "dirty pikey". This really got my attention but what shocked me more was how much it affected her. It just shows that regardless of how many fans you have that love you to bits, it's the little negative comments that stick. How can we be so harsh when we don't know her? Those people are just jealous, they really are, but it's hard to see that their opinion doesn't matter when it causes so much upset.

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to judge people we know little about. Where do we draw that line between having an opinion and bullying? Think before you decide to choose negativity, it's most definitely not the way forward.

Hopes and dreams at what price - Are we misleading the next generation?

Everyday we are bombarded with celebrities and success stories that it's easy to forget about the people that don't make it.Those that do get to live their dreams aren't always the perfect example either... I suppose it's easy to say "you can do it, never give up" when you have it all but is it really fair to mislead youngsters into thinking they will soon have the world at their feet? TV shows like The X Factor and Britain's Got Talent give the impression that regardless of how little talent you have, you can still be a "celebrity". How does that effect people mentally? Once you have your five minutes of fame you can be dropped, just like that. Do people not realise that's a difficult thing to cope with?

There are genuinely talented teenagers out there but if the public can't laugh at them are they viewed as worthless? These people don't think they need a plan B, they're splashed over newspapers and magazines for weeks and then their time is up and it's back to stacking shelves in Asda.

For example Leon Jackson; everybody loved him and he actually won The X Factor and hundreds of thousands of people voted for him. His debut single, a cover, was the fastest selling single of 2007 and reached Christmas No.1. Leon's debut album came out a year later but sold a lot less than expected and Sony dropped him. Aren't the judges meant to care about their acts? They brag to the cameras about how much the contestants mean to them but it's obviously all false.

Look at Popstars:The Rivals in 2001, the singing hopefuls were on TV for weeks while the public voted for their favourites to make it into the pop groups; Girls Aloud (girls) and One True Voice (boys). After the final the groups were told all about how ridiculously successful they'd be and how far they'd already come. Girls Aloud, right enough, did become an extremely successful and respected girl group. However, you can't say the same for One True Voice. Reading this can you even remember what they looked like or what their debut single sounded like? The worst part for them must have been seeing the girls that won the show alongside them going off and living the dream which was right fully theirs. In the mean time 'One True Voice' disappeared into obscurity. One member Daniel Pearce didn't give up though. Eight years later, in 2009, he auditioned for The X Factor. He got through and was on TV again but at the Judges' Houses round before the live finals he was axed. How must he have felt to be "chosen" by the judges knowing he was close yet again to his dream only to be dropped...was this just a "heart strings" moment to keep the public gripped. Daniel has now said at the age of 33, he has finally given up. Where will he be in another ten years?

It's easy to forget about the "washed up" ones but there are countless stories like this and it's not their fault. Someone is handing them their dream on a plate, the excitement, the hype, especially for teenagers doesn't leave time to step back and realise it's not real and could actually be the start of an experience that will scar them for the rest of their lives.