The first one is the pumpkin woman - I covered her already: Photo is distant, front on, fully clothed, wearing stripes so hard to judge her shape. However, she certainly doesn't look skinny.
The 2nd photo looks like a professionally shot photo, very likely for a magazine. Indeed, you can see writing in the bottom left corner, as if from a catalogue. It's suspicious that this photo is in there. If this photo hasn't been retouched, well it's certainly been shot to show this woman in the best possible light. Further, again, she's wearing stripes and its front on - making it hard to tell.
The 4th: He's got a slightly baggy shirt on, so hard to be sure, but from the way it goes in at his belt, he may well have a very slight paunch - which would be very consistent with 'overweight', no?
The 5th: He's about my height, and he's definitely heavier set than I am - you can see some spare subcutaneous fat between his neck and jawline.
I am right on the line between normal and overweight, FWIW. My face and neck and shoulders probably look like I'm not carrying much fat. However, I still have a slight spare tyre around my midriff. Further, under the skin is not the only place fat accumulates. It also accumulates around the organs. People can look relatively thin if judged just on the upper body or legs or skin, but still be overweight because of visceral fat.
I think the problem perhaps is that people have become accustomed to overweight being "normal". However, it wasn't. If I look through old photos, from my grandparents times when my parents when kids, in the 50s and 60s, to when I was a young child in the 70s, it is *striking* to me how people then were generally much thinner than people today, particularly pre-middle-aged adults (e.g. my parents).
Just because overweight has become "normal" in the sense that most western populations are now overweight, doesn't mean it is "normal" with respect to a healthy weight.