I would argue the latter. Photoshop, a computer program that is able to alter photos in incredible ways, has been showing up more and more in magazines than most individuals probably realize. When I used to look at a photo of someone in a magazine, I expected the minor touch-ups: get rid of pimples, smooth out some areas, etc. But could photos be far more "photoshopped" than expected?
Here is a video that shows just how easily a photo can be altered without looking altered.
The ease of photoshop shown in this video brings up the concern: how do we know if photos are real or not? Could every photo just be fake? How does that affect, then, a reader? My main concern is that there are people looking at these photos and comparing themselves to those images. If photos of individuals in the majority of magazines are photoshopped to be flawless, what is that telling readers about self-image and about what is socially accepted? That beauty is having flawless skin, perfect teeth and makeup? Hmm...
To understand the prevalence of photoshop in mainstream media, this article from The New York Times does a great job of explaining it. One thing from it that I want to highlight is the idea that photoshopping is not always the editors initiative.
The article mentioned, for example, that "Chris Buck, a celebrity photographer who describes his shots as more natural, tells his assistant during photo shoots not to let a publicist or celebrity look at his work. He said his approach has cost him some business, especially with older actresses" (Haughney 1).
Yikes. It seems like celebrities aren't so offended to see themselves brushed up a little. But what implications does that have on magazines that, well, preach about "being yourself" and being "natural" like Seventeen Magazine? Did they not expect that someone would eventually think it's hypocritical to preach to girls that they should be natural but still publish magazine with photoshopped and overly edited photos? Well, here's what happened. Julia Bluhm, a 14 year old girl, called the magazine out on it and got the editor-in-chief Ann Shoket to pledge not to alter the photographs in the magazine. As skeptical as I am that Shoket will actually never alter photos, it's promising that people are beginning to call magazines out on this issue. Even better, Bluhm's petition on photoshopped photos in Seventeen caught a lot of attention and young girls are now looking to get Teen Vogue, another magazine, to make the pledge.
Will it catch on? Or will photoshopped, flawless, and deceiving images be here to stay? Are we ready to reject the ideals magazines paint for us? I guess time will tell.
I agree that there is a significant problem in perpetuating these images of perfection in society. Unfortunately, I think this status quo will hold for the conceivable future. For those using Photoshop on their images, there is a clear incentive. They edit their photos to make their products look better and to make more money. Unless an incentive stronger than this one arises to not edit photos, magazines will continue to do as they do. So perhaps the only way to create change is to foster a public incentive where readers are more inclined to buy a magazine who uses natural photos.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it is important to not the occasions where Photoshop is good. While I don't have a specific example in mind, I am thinking of a potential photo that could show an impoverished area and use Photoshop to make the area look worse. While this could be potentially dangerous in fostering a single story, it could be good because it may garner more aid to help the area than it otherwise could have.
I definitely agree with your last point there- in some ways, Photoshop can be good. However, if we support it too fervently, Photoshop might become too common or too often used. While some photos can be lightly enhanced to increase the shock-factor of the photo, Photoshop has been increasingly abused...as we can see in the Dove video. We don't want photography to turn into something that we can't trust. I want to know that most of the photos I'm seeing are natural.
DeleteI definitely agree that "touch-ups" have been taken to a whole new level in these past few years. One example that pops into my head it is Sarah Jessica Parker. She often stars in Garnier hair and facial product commercials and in them she looks flawless http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIX5w6TyhXc But if you google photos of her, you see there she has wrinkles and imperfections. http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/234269_XIegWgnehCJzEAyl1kgRgsJpw.jpg
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I think she looks fine without being photoshopped, but people buy into these scams. Girls see these models in magazines and on TV who have flawless faces, perfect hair, and ultra-skinny bodies. But it's not reality! The problem is, we see one picture after another like this and so we start to buy into it. Think about how many more products companies sell because people see such false advertisements. Now what if all those women knew that the $300 eye cream they bought because they saw a model with perfect skin wearing it in a magazine wasn't actually as good as it promised, instead the brand perfected their model to enhance their product sales... I agree that photoshop has its benefits, such as highlighting different parts of a photo, but I don't think it should be used as much on people as it currently is. It would be much safer for young girls to see models in her natural form, or even wearing makeup, than photoshopped pictures. I feel that if magazines choose to photoshop that they should state somewhere within that they have done so. That way people know that reality has been somewhat distorted.
Thanks for that example! It's definitely sad to see how often Photoshop is used in advertisements. I honestly can't trust most advertisements and especially ones for beauty products. I would love for companies to post natural photos and to not fabricate trials...because then as a consumer, I would be confident in what I'm purchasing. The "acceptance" of Photoshop in advertisements also encourages companies to produce cheaper products and to just touch up their photos. This frustrates me.
DeleteYikes, is so true! It's a bit scary that we are subconsciously taking all the photos that we see in magazines as fact. Because, as we've talked about in English - there's a sense of "it must be true" since it's in a magazine, since it's published. As a result, you're totally right in that it affects us, kind of like subliminal messaging in Disney movies. But, I think the article that you cited from Chris Buck brings up a different angle to this recognized problem. Like, what kind of impact could this have on the actual models? Are there any models who have been affected by the severity of photoshop on the pictures? I think it's typically been a one sided argument in that, photoshop has negative implications for the audience, and while that is very important, what about the effects on those on the other side of the lens? What are their rights when it comes to photoshopping pictures? For exampl, if models agree to become models, do they also agree to a contract that says all their pictures can/will be photoshopped? That would be really freaky, and almost offensive...
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting question. I don't know a ton about the modeling industry, so I have no clue whether or not a contract needs to be signed regarding that. Maybe photographers aren't as blunt about it and get models to sign a contract to allow them to do whatever they want with the photos they take? Still, I'm not sure I would want to grant a stranger the ability to tamper with my photos. But maybe that's what you need to do if you want to stay in the industry.... I agree though, it seems quite offensive..
ReplyDelete