Recently I have found on the Internet interesting news from July 2012. A 14-year-old girl,
Julia Bluhm, has started the online petition against altering and airbrushing models in the
magazine for teens “Seventeen”. The action had a great response and she gathered about 84,000 signatures. Moreover, Julia achieved what she intended – the magazine editor-in-chief declared that the magazine will never change the shapes of girls’ bodies or faces.
It seems that people (and perhaps women in particular) are becoming more and more angry about non-realistic image of models. Some of the protesters even envision a legislative solution. It’s hard to say how many similar actions were taken, but for sure it wasn’t the only one. Unfortunately, it is likely that it was one of very few which succeeded.
Two other teens inspired by the success of the petition wanted “Teen Vouge” to do the same. They protested near the office of the magazine and gathered 28,000 signatures. The editor of the magazine met with the girls, but their expectations weren’t treated seriously, and they were treated in a rude way. The girls were given copies of Teen Vogue and said to use them to learn more.
Another petition against digitally altering pictures of young girls, which gained 12,000
signatures, was sent to “Cleo” magazine. Cleo’s editor responded by sending the protesters the magazine’s list of retouching guidelines. They contain mainly colour and contrast changes and removing skin marks (but not natural lines and freckles).These guidelines pertain to shots taken specifically for the magazine 'Cleo', however, do not apply to images that come from external picture agencies, which are “beyond Cleo’s control”. The protesters replied that the magazine should go further and clearly label digitally altered images. Furthermore, they should show models of different ethnics and sizes.
The protesters see the problem in the harmful effects of unrealistic images on the consciousness of adolescent girls and women. This also refers to the issue of too thin models on catwalks.
A good example that certain trends are changing, are frequent photo sessions of celebrities without makeup made for top magazines.
Good impact on our awareness of the problem have pictures "before and after", which
can easily be found on the Internet. Interestingly, some of them were published by the
photographers who took the photos. Was the reason the desire to show that they have
nothing to do with image processing? And what do models (or celebrities) who were
photographed think about it – it is hard to say.
The growing reluctance to “photoshop” is also caused by the mistakes committed by the
retouchers. It's not just about smoothing your skin or "swollen" breasts. There appear
missing or extra hands, extremely disproportionate legs, disappearing navels, which are
comic proofs of how much photos are manipulated.
We should answer the question of how much we are aware that what we see in the pictures is more an illustration than a photography, and for whom these illusions are created when ordinary reader feels more frustrated than delighted?
Questions:
- What do you think about retouching photos- do you like them, do you think they are
harmful?
- What kind of Photoshop changes are ok and which are not? Where is the border?
- Do you think that this is just a female problem, or does it concern also male models and
customers?
- Should retouching photos in teens magazines be forbidden?
Sources:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2168740/Schoolgirls-protest-magazine-airbrushing-success-
Seventeen-vows-alter-models-bodies-again.html
http://www.ynaija.com/go-away-teen-vogue-shockingly-rude-to-girls-protesting-magazine-photoshop/
http://mumbrella.com.au/cleo-stands-firm-against-anti-photoshop-protest-110558
http://jezebel.com/5431465/women-protest-ralph-laurens-ridiculous-photoshop
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2168223/Victorias-Secret-models-thighs-looks-bizarrely-bow-
legged-new-swimwear-shoot.html
I have nothing against photoshopping pictures including pictures with ladies on best selling magazines. Human history is pretty well known from manipulating images including times going far behind era of computers.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all especially ladies care about their look, so what is wrong with even better way of improving their look by adding few filters in photoshop ? If it so much annoys female customers of these magazine then why are they reading mentioned magazines ? No one forces them to read magazines and get so frustrated.
I'm also aware of some photo contests which are strictly preventing any content manipulations. And I'm completly in agreement that good photographers can make great pictures without altering images. However here we come into area if technical capabilities of their cameras, optical filters and so on. Is $10.000 camera able to make better pictures in general than $100 camera ? I'm fraid answer would be positive.
But article is mainly touching a problem of a teen magazines and pictures included there. Again I'll refer back to what I said at the very beginning. I'm totally ok with altering pictures. Maybe it would be wise to write somewhere under the picture that it was altered, photoshopped or in any way modified.
You ask why women read magazines with extremely retouched models. Please, show me just one magazine, one advert, in which there are no such pictures. Maybe we, stupid woman, shouldn't read at all? :)
ReplyDeleteAnwsering your second question- I myself am a photographer, and believe me, there is no lens nor camera body which will increase breast and will reduce the the waist of the model ;) Filters or advanced technique does not affect the look of a model in the way I wrote about (skin marks can be reduced by proper scene lightning and of course makeup, but it will look the same for camera for 1000$ and 10000$).
If you need picture examples:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/17-mesmerizing-before-after-photoshop-gifs
Nice pictures. Of course I do like more retouched pictures. And I'm fully aware they has been modified, but simply they look better. So still the fundamental question remains - what is wrong in improving pictures?
ReplyDeleteFew days ago I was changing my ID and drivers licence. I need to make some updated pictures - photographer even didnt ask me a quesion if I agree on retouching pictures in photoshop. At least I look slightly better in my new documents.
By the way, I think that quite soon most advanced cameras will let you do more content aware modifications. Photoshop already can let you remove an object from picture or replace a tree with something else.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt all depends on what type of retouching we are talking about. I work with Photoshop and I do process my pictures in this program, yet my photo processing ends up only with changing the contrast, resolution et cetera. I have never retouch faces to "improve" their appearance since I believe that naturalness is the most beautiful, and all minor imperfections can be improved by appropriate makeup.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in my opinion all retouched photos should not only be banned in the magazines for young people, but also they should be banned in all other magazines, tabloids or ads that aim to promote feminine beauty.
Photo retouching? I really do not care. Why should I? I do not read those magazines. I am not teenager nor female. I would say it is not may problem, but there is something behind. If you forbid photo retouching, next step would be forbidding real women retouching. I mean making up. That would be fine for me. I prefer natural beauty. I always say to my wife that I prefer to kiss her lips rather than modern chemistry achievements. On the other hand sometimes mother nature fails and I do not mind when someone wants to help her to hide evidence of those failures.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to figure out what really is behind those photo-retouching protests. And I am somewhat leery about that. Maybe next step will be forbidding beautiful actresses to play in movies at all. I do not like this idea. I must admit I remember mornings when looking in the mirror was really traumatic but I never wanted to eliminate all that is more pretty then my face on the glass.
And of course following this path we should burn at the stake all Barbie dolls.
ReplyDeleteI think the retouching is fine, of course, this depends on the extent to which this is a retouched picture, but I'm not opposed to retouch. If someone does not want his photo was retouched, it should consult with the photographer before. In my opinion, thanks to this, the pictures on the covers of magazines are retouched and sometimes "perfect" magazines sell better. If someone does not like these photos and do not like his cover of magazines with perfect men and women, let them simply do not buy. I am also doing photos and of course I do not always using the PS, but I often use retouching to improve contrast, brightness and retouching small imperfections, if it is a portrait. I love the natural photos of models without makeup in the light of day, preferably black and white. These photos just need a gentle retouch or not at all. Sometimes I see pictures in the newspapers, which is clearly visible use PS, but that's the fault of the retoucher who overreacted. Most are the bleached eyes, or face like a doll, did not see where the skin structure, or unnaturally bleached teeth. Retouch we use it sparingly, so that the picture looks very good, it was well lit, but to also not completely lost the natural, the pictures I like the most.
Firstly I need to say that I stronly agree with last paragraph of yours article. In my opinion photograph is modern painting but we can't forget that also movies are "fake". By fake I mean that there is more 3D models crated by graphic designers than actors and real things. This picture contains almost everything what have to be said in this topic :)
ReplyDeletehttp://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Q4JnF2byb8._GewFSSh1zA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/blogs/ukiemovies/george-lucas-greenscreen.jpg
I like very much photoshoped photograps because they are simply prettier ( I'm not taking in to consideration "photoshop fails" but these made by professionals) The harmful thing is that people are not aware that there is no real person on particular image, thare are only a bunch of pixels :)
I do not understand why people who belive that every photograph in Vogue or Cosmopolitan are real do not fear of Hulk after release of the Avengers movie. This is the same logic.
Ofcourse it concern male models and customers, but it shouldn't be categorized in that way. Problem with distinguishing reality from human created things are the society problem not only men or woman.
- Should retouching photos in teens magazines be forbidden?
I don't see any reason of doing that, because prhotshop is not the problem. Japanese people do not seem to even consider such things because most products are advertised by drawed models (even Windows 8 http://www.japantoday.com/images/size/x/2012/11/cuteanime.jpg )
Although thease drawnings are not so different from western models (according to used photoshop while "creating" them) people put them to different boxes. They shouldn't do that, thats all :)
Photoshop and other programs are using the retouching. Some of these operations is ok and has a positive effect on the itself photos while others are already at the limit of good taste or even going in the wrong direction. I believe that every tool should be used wisely. Youth publications should consider how many changes tolerate the pictures. The problem is related to the perception of these writings by young people and their influence on the development of personality and the possible formation of complexes.
ReplyDeleteI do not know much about this, but I think the excessive retouched can do more harm than good.
Questions/Answers:
ReplyDelete1. As a rule I do not like correcting photos. In addition, I think that most of the magazine covers presenting the same model’s face without any expression. For me, it's repulsive, probably I have never bought such magazine in my life.
2. I think that you can hide minor details, smooth something. Moreover, in the same way human eye sees. When a loved person is laughing you are looking on her through the prism of joy which surrounds her and you are not recognize many unnecessary details. If the amendments are putting this expression, I agree on that. Border is when you can’t recognize person from corrected photo.
3. I think the problem started from paintings made many decades ago when only rich people was able to pay for their own portrait. They usually added posture, height, or changed skin tone. Is this situation really has changed in modern times? According to me, women beauty improvement is more often visible in media, probably just because it is in a greater needs.
4. In the case of children, the rules should be stricter. I think that the prohibitions do not help, but information mandatory under the photo with percentage of the original image, and how much percentage is modified just to give reason to think for our gullible teenagers.