Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Bulan · May 5th 2010, 11:26am

Hey all,

I would like to ask your opinions about photoshopping in media. Photoshopping is when there are significant changes in the photo for the purpose of deceiving the photo viewer. Examples of photoshopping are removing freckles from a model's face, erasing acne, and changing the color of a model's skin tone.

Nowadays, when you look at ads and pictures on magazine, the models often don't look real. They often look very perfect! Do you ever wonder how they look like in real life?? Do you think the pictures are sending bad messages to teenagers?

What I want to ask you are:
-Can you notice when a photo has been manipulated? If so, how?
-Do you think photo manipulation make you feel more critical of how you look?

I am sure everyone has something to say about it, because photoshopping is used everywhere these days; from brochures to movie posters to CD covers. Your contributions will be highly appreciated!

B.

Dexter. · May 5th 2010, 12:35pm

It's quite disgusting, then ''normal'' girls think that they aren't perfect because of hours of photoshop... Some photoshops are really bad though, i saw one once, they even airbrushed her kneecaps out :rofl:

Batgirl · May 5th 2010, 1:28pm

It's airbrushed, not hairbrushed.

And I really don't have a problem with it. I'm a part of the modelling industry now and really I just see it as touching up on art. No one says people have to look like that or that they aren't pretty themselves. And those that do say it, or think that obviously have something wrong with them.

ByTor190 · May 5th 2010, 1:50pm

The media in general disturbs me.

Esmo · May 5th 2010, 6:38pm

Depends on how it's used. If it's being used to deceive as to how things are in real life, then it's a distortion of the truth in the public sphere, and that's always disturbing.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

Batgirl wrote:

I just see it as touching up on art. No one says people have to look like that or that they aren't pretty themselves. And those that do say it, or think that obviously have something wrong with them.

I'd agree that the modelling industry is an art form, but the way you talk about 'touching it up' implies that there's something wrong with the models' appearance. Does that not send out a negative message about body image?

plax77 · May 5th 2010, 8:17pm

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqzlxGGJFo']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Bulan · May 5th 2010, 8:21pm

Thanks guys for the reply!

I wonder if teenagers in general are aware when a photo has been manipulated....

Can you tell?

Batgirl · May 5th 2010, 8:58pm

Esmo wrote:

Depends on how it's used. If it's being used to deceive as to how things are in real life, then it's a distortion of the truth in the public sphere, and that's always disturbing.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

I'd agree that the modelling industry is an art form, but the way you talk about 'touching it up' implies that there's something wrong with the models' appearance. Does that not send out a negative message about body image?

Not really. It's more like adding glitter to a lining or a different feel to dimensions. Some could say it gives a negative impact, sure but not many people realize that a lot of place ask for permission to retouch photos or ask if it's okay to add specific things. There's a lot of choice involved.

---------- Post added at 05:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 AM ----------

Bulan wrote:

Thanks guys for the reply!

I wonder if teenagers in general are aware when a photo has been manipulated....

Can you tell?

I think there are programs that can tell if a specific photo has been edited.
But in the way of airbrushing, it gives the pictures less tone and definition so a picture that is airbrushed is rather obvious.

plax77 · May 5th 2010, 9:24pm

Batgirl wrote:

I think there are programs that can tell if a specific photo has been edited.
But in the way of airbrushing, it gives the pictures less tone and definition so a picture that is airbrushed is rather obvious.

Watch my video, they use photoshop in it and yet you can't tell when the photo is done

bad news · May 6th 2010, 3:21am

I am a photographer and it is blatantly obvious to me when something is 'shopped. I don't think its an issue. It's normal for an advertising agency to use the ultimate perception of beauty instead of a realistic perception of beauty to advertise their products. Advertisements are meant to be exaggerated. I don't know why women take them so seriously.

Batgirl · May 6th 2010, 7:08am

Plax, it is actually quite obvious that the end image has been photoshopped.

Aannddyy · May 6th 2010, 8:24am

I don't really have a problem with models being photoshopped if it's purely for art purposes, but it's a big no-no if the model is, say, advertising.

Esmo · May 6th 2010, 6:53pm

Batgirl wrote:

Not really. It's more like adding glitter to a lining or a different feel to dimensions. Some could say it gives a negative impact, sure but not many people realize that a lot of place ask for permission to retouch photos or ask if it's okay to add specific things. There's a lot of choice involved.

What are these 'places', and who's doing the choosing?

I don't have anything wrong with obviously manipulated photos, and obviously, neither do you. But do you have a problem with manipulated media photos that are not obviously manipulated to the casual viewer?

UlrikS · May 6th 2010, 10:14pm

You always retouch your photos to look better if you're a photographer, at least as long as it's not supposed to not be. Even photojournalists sometimes edit the contras and colours a little.
So it's just natural to make the model look better. After all, photos in magazines etc. are supposed to look good.

If people don't understand that it's retouched, then it's they who are the problem, and not the photoshopping.

Batgirl · May 7th 2010, 3:11am

Esmo wrote:

What are these 'places', and who's doing the choosing?

I don't have anything wrong with obviously manipulated photos, and obviously, neither do you. But do you have a problem with manipulated media photos that are not obviously manipulated to the casual viewer?

The places I talk about could be whoever keeps the photos and edits them. The photographers, or companies for modeling, magazines or other places. The model gets to choose. Not all the time, of course but a lot of the time.
And my statement applies to both obvious and non-obvious photoshopping.

Esmo · May 8th 2010, 12:51am

Batgirl wrote:

And my statement applies to both obvious and non-obvious photoshopping.

But if you photoshop the media in a non-obvious fashion, then you're essentially aiming, in the public sphere, to deceive people to believe that what they're seeing is true. That's not only a dangerous precedent for the media to be taking, it's morally wrong.

Cass Cass · May 8th 2010, 12:53am

The only thing thats disturbing about photoshopping is photoshopping models, and the way it affects young women and womens body image.

Batgirl · May 8th 2010, 3:05am

Esmo wrote:

But if you photoshop the media in a non-obvious fashion, then you're essentially aiming, in the public sphere, to deceive people to believe that what they're seeing is true. That's not only a dangerous precedent for the media to be taking, it's morally wrong.

I really don't see anything wrong with it. My post applies to that, too.
Besides, advertising is for promotion. And to promote, you have to convince people that your product is the best. Advertisements were made for deception, so photoshop is just a tool. If people can't think for themselves, that is their problem. Their weakness shouldn't be considered the fault of anyone's.

Esmo · May 8th 2010, 11:55am

Batgirl wrote:

Besides, advertising is for promotion. And to promote, you have to convince people that your product is the best. Advertisements were made for deception, so photoshop is just a tool. If people can't think for themselves, that is their problem. Their weakness shouldn't be considered the fault of anyone's.

Advertisements were not made for deception. They were made, as you said before, for promotion. You can promote a product without lying about it, and it is rightly illegal to do so deceptively.

People would be able to think better for themselves if we didn't have such flagrant deception in the public sphere. People would know where to stand. As it is, people either feel that they can't trust any media (so, actually, the media is the loser in that one) or they still make the effort but are unable to distinguish and so make errors between truth and fake. That's not their 'weakness' or their fault, that's them just being led on by the media and making a genuine mistake.

You've probably read or at least heard of Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. That book pretty much sums up why I think there should be no openings for deception in the public sphere.

Batgirl · May 8th 2010, 12:02pm

This is the modern world. Many people don't care what is illegal and what is not. They want to tell people that their product is the best and in selfish company owners, that'll spark them to do anything they have to, to get attention. But it's not fair to say that only photoshopping is used to deceive people. They'll flat out lie using any means possible.
I'll stick to saying that I think photoshopping in media is perfectly fine, as long as they're not explicitly telling people that you -must- look like that.

Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Batgirl wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Esmo wrote:

Bulan wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Batgirl wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Batgirl wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Esmo wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Batgirl wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Esmo wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Batgirl wrote:

Re: Photoshopping in media: does it disturb you?

Share

Tags