Now somebody tell me those lips at 00:47 aren't collagened. 
I was amazed to read, a while back, that a photo of the skeletal Kate Middleton in her wedding dress on the cover of a magazine called Grazia in the UK was airbrushed to make her waist even smaller. (Inadvertently, of course.)
http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/872190-kate-middleton-wedding-photo-was-airbrushed-grazia-admits
I got a lifetime ban from my favourite online genealogy forum last year for questioning Middleton's, um, value as a role model on several fronts. I figured that as the wife of Canada's future head of state, she was kinda fair game. I was wrong. Turned out only true brits were allowed to diss the royals. Fortunately, somebody has lent me a sockpuppet.
Anybody need any UK genealogy? The core group of ancestor-hunters at the site, a dozen or so women, are addicted to the chase, even for complete strangers' forefathers and foremothers. On that last, we're always amused by the men who announce they're only interested in their surname line, i.e. their direct male-line ancestors. At least when you trace through your female ancestors, you can actually be pretty sure that the people you find actually are your ancestors!
Not that I buy into the noise that circulates about the huge number of children who are found, when DNA analysis is done, not to be the children of their alleged fathers. I believe the finding comes from tests done in child support cases, when one might expect that the sample is kind of self-selecting and skewed.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read