I’d like to preface this post by noting that Warren (fellow classmate) and I run a glamour/studio photography hobby-venture where we routinely manipulate/airbrush/touchup photos of our models (friends). To see examples, take a look at: http://apglamour.com/portfolio.htm
My question is this: is it so much of a sin to make someone (or something) look its absolute best? As an example, every girl in this class has worn makeup at some point in their life. Is this not a deceptive portrayal of what you really look like? Bear with me for a second. What is the motivational difference between you applying makeup to smooth out skin tones and hide blemishes and a photographer doing very similar techniques with software? You are both trying to create visual appeal.
Another example: when you get married, you’ll probably hire a professional photographer and not have your uncle take them with a point-and-shoot. Why? Probably because the photographer is talented at using lighting and composition to make you and your wedding look as beautiful as possible. That makes sense; you want to look beautiful in your wedding photos. But the whole reason you are willing to shell out serious money for the professional photographer is because he can make you look drastically better than your uncle could. You looked the same but the photos of you just became much more flattering. Is that deceptive? Surely not. Photoshop is an extremely powerful tool, lighting is more powerful. I speak from experience when I say that light can be used to make breasts larger, muscles stronger, waists thinner, and skin smoother. Does this mean that we should shoot everything in flat, harsh light just in case the viewer thinks that the model (or BigMac for that matter) looks more visually appealing than they might in another setting? I would argue no. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you. I assume that most people know that when we look at a picture of anything, it is going to look better or more perfect then it would look if you were looking at it in person. In the presentation yesterday when they showed the picture of the burger that is enhanced to look a lot better wasn't surprising to me because I know when I see commercials/billboards/models in magazine I know its not 100% natural and there is a lot of enhancements to it. I don't think its terrible that we enhance things because we all are aware of technology and the enhancements that take place.
ReplyDeleteAnother topic that was brought up yesterday that interested me was one of the speakers explained that these softwares that make models look so perfect create these pressures and images that are impossible for society to reach. Yes I do think this does create pressure for girls to try to be like, but at the same time I would hope people understand that this is natural beauty and a lot of work and airbrush go into it? Because so many things are tweaked with software how do you draw the line? Why is it such a big deal when we all know its happening?
I don't consider digital manipulation as "wrong" when it's being used for products of aesthetic appeal. Special effects in movies and air-brushed professional photographs are created with artistic free expression and the resulting image is usually appreciated by the majority of viewers. I would only consider digital manipulation a controversial issue when an altered image is claimed as the truth, such as that altered 9/11 image that was published in newspapers or the student featured in the Wisconsin's brochure.
ReplyDeleteI work in a research lab where we take digital pictures of tissue samples through a microscope and use photoshop to enhance the quality of the image. We only adjust the focus and the brightness/contrast of the pictures; these enhancements are used to highlight the important aspects of the results. It would be unethical of us to fundamentally alter the whole image in order to report untruthful claims and putting it in published works. Otherwise, without digital manipulation, movies would be boring and burgers would always look unappetizing.
Couldn't have said it better myself (said the fellow photo-manipulator)
ReplyDeleteIt is completely understandable that we as artistic individuals or researchers must be able to present our products to the best that it can be in order to highlight important features. So of course, in a way, digital manipulation is not a "sin". It is required in order to remove the "blemishes" in a photo or to enhance or alter to make a new piece of art.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with digital manipulation of course is when it is misleading and causes issues with copyright for example. I also think it is also up to the individual to make decisions for themselves to figure out if they should believe everything that we hear or see. However, some individuals can be easily persuaded. Nothing is ever as it seems, and this is especially true with advertising, art, or journalism for example.
In my opinion, digital manipulation is just a different medium of deception that is being used to "mislead" the public. A visual deception is what it is. We cannot say throughout all of human history that society has not been decieved by its own government (for example in propaganda). The issue at hand is not whether or not digital manipulation is horrible, but how it should be regulated.
I agree with NJ - digital manipulation is enhancement. We use it to make things look more appealing, not necessarily to deceive people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with rachel that digital manipulation is a visual deception and it should be regulated. However, I find it hard to believe that all celebrities and models would be willing to go au natural without any touch ups. Sex sells and being fit, looking young and vibrant is a necessity in the limelight of the entertainment industry. While the Dove campaign has made some progress to "reveal the real you," they are far from conquering the problem of digital manipulation. When I pick up a magazine I am well aware that the person on the cover has definitely had some touch ups and doesn't really look like that if I saw that person on the street. You can't compare someone wearing makeup and having digital manipulation because they are completely different issues. Yes, makeup is an enhancement, but you can't change your frame, like you could with digital manipulation. And most of the people that you see are already wearing makeup when they have the touchups done so that's an extra step in itself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNJ's argument about makeup is well founded. If digital manipulation is deceitful, then so is makeup. Granted, more can be done with photoshop than with foundation, but the intent (and effective result) is the same: a portrayal of yourself that is "enhanced," or unnatural (as some have put it).
ReplyDeleteWhile the degrees may differ, the idea is the same. Whether this idea is fundamentally wrong or not may be up for debate, I don't think you can argue that one (makeup) is "right" while the other (manip) is "wrong".
I completely agree with NJ that digital manipulation is completely acceptable in the wedding/personal photography scenario. Yes, we all want to look beautiful, especially on these occasions. And of course lighting, lenses and composition can go a long way to ensure that we look awesome… but everyone still wants to be retouched.
ReplyDeleteI think its important to differentiate these situations from others in that when you hire a wedding photographer or pose for a portrait, you generally discuss with and grant the photographer (usually paying him/her extra) to digitally manipulate your image. Art directors spend hours and hire outside agencies that specialize only in post-production manipulation to ensure photos and video are perfect for their clients. I think this is an important distinction to make when arguing for the ethics of digital manipulation. When you look at a wedding photo, you know it’s been retouched. When you look at a news photo, you should be able to assume it has not been.
The examples that NJ gave are very circumstantial, and in each one I agree that digital manipulation is used in a positive way. I like to look my best on a day to day basis and use make-up when I go out. I always notice that food looks better on the menu, and that is acceptable standards now. I think digital manipulation can have a greater impact than that. I heard in the news a while ago about a photo being manipulated to make it seem as though children were being shot in a conflict, this kind of manipulation has been going on since WWII. When this photo was presented on an international stage it brought false uprising against the group. The journalist in this case was not doing the manipulation for art and this purposeful distribution of misinformation should not be legal.
ReplyDeletei think that the line between enhancement and deceit, although a very difficult line to define, is the important distinction between different types of digital manipulation. I'm majoring in Media/Film production and a lot of what I've learned is how to manipulate images in many different ways to create different reactions from an audience. This is fairly innocent in the realm of fictional films, but documentary is a different story. It can be very tempting to 'creatively' edit someones words or actions to make them appear a certain way. In these cases, it would seem that one must decide if they are augmenting information that is already present, or if they are creating something entirely new. But I suppose even that is subjective.
ReplyDeleteYou can only compare digital manipulation to putting on makeup only when digital manipulation is performed at a certain degree. For example, eliminating blemishes and smoothing out skin tones is comparable, but readjusting the size of the nose/lips/eye-color/breast/etc. is not at all comparable. I don't know what side to take when using digital manipulation to create the 'perfect' look but it is important to consider this comparison a little more in detail before using it to justify digital manipulation.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify: my blog entry was in regards to the criticism that photo manipulation (of models in magazines, etc) distorts our perception of beauty.
ReplyDeleteThe examples I gave were not to justify photo manipulation in journalism or research.
I agree with npatel, because there is only so much that you can do with makeup. On the other hand, digital manipulation can totally change an image or the way we precieve an image. Personally i feel that for personal reasons (wedding photos or family photos) that touching up is more than fine because it is only for your own benefit. You know what you look like and its your own choice as to change that appearance or not. But when its done on a commercial scale people dont know what to believe after a certain point (the distortion of the idea of beauty). I understand why photographers/modeling companies need to manipulate photos. By showing the "perfect" image they can sell their product more effectively.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if there is anything that can be done about it or even what exactly should be done but i just thought i would add my two cents.
It is the purpose of a company to market itself into a position that allows it to be successful. If that means, using a staged Big Mac (as suggested above), to make a hamburger look more enticing, then McDonalds has every right to do so. On the other hand, if a company wants to airbrush a model to make her look more "socially attractive", then they have a right to do so. I don't think it is fair to blame corporations for dictating what is beautiful to a society. I think it should be up to the consumer to judge for themselves what is appropriate. If a consumer doesn't approve of the way a company markets itself, don't patronize the establishment
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is "so much of a sin to present someone in their best form," but I do feel that there are certain instances when it crosses the line. For instance, I don't think that having a celebrity request to have their photos edited so they don't look like they just woke up. This is only human nature, as anyone wouldn't want to be photographed in this light. In contrast, I think that changing someone's view of a product digitally which could influence their purchase or view of that product is wrong. An example of this could be an online diamond auction, or maybe manipulating the scratches on a vehicle to be sold online. Overall, it is the nature in which the picture is manipulated and the situation where it is posted.
ReplyDeleteI am a photographer myself and I see how light and angle can really play into improving the appearances of the model. Professionally for advertising, you expect to see the best of the best. The approach taken is to sell the product. So we expect models to be good looking, skinny and able to sell. Yet, on top of those demands, we airbrush and improve. If it doesn't compromise the integrity of what you're selling then I don't see the problem if it helps sell the item.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal level with images taken by me, I think a line should be drawn. I believe that questions must be asked between he/she who is being photographed and the photographer themselves. Is airbrushing okay? what about skin and complexion? Sure. But where I personally can become offended is when airbrushing is used to pull of visible wieght to improve the shot, without being asked if this adjustment is appropriate. I believe that we need to have terms and agreements personally in these situations such as weddings.
Overall, digital manipulation is a given, but when and where it is used should have an agreement on integrity.
I agree with the majority. Digital maniuplation is acceptable for human-photo-adjustment. I think the proverbial line is crossed when a company misrepresents a product. While I admit that our economy is based on keeping up with the Jones and every company needs to outdo its competitors for growth's sake - intentional misrepresentation of a product (its image, namely) is lying.
ReplyDeleteIn another post I said that fairness exists because everyone is capable of being duped. But I think when someone buys something sight-unseen and makes monetary commitment based upon a digital representation of what should be the truth, the line is crossed.
Everyone weeds out their bad photos and does slight fixes to make them better. I don't think that digital manipulation can be ruled out completely since it's become so engrained at this point. People can, in general, tell when an image has been altered for a magazine cover or whatnot. The problem with letting digital manipulation influence our ideas of beauty comes when kids get involved who can't tell the difference. We can't really scale this manipulation back to protect kids, but they should be shown somehow that these aren't accurate portrayals of people.
ReplyDeleteI think this is such an interesting topic, yet very controversial. Have any of you ever seen the "dove manipulation"? Here is the video's link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H07hwxtjRI. This is a perfect example of how this phenomenon is the reason for why our concept of beauty is so distorted and unreachable by any normal human being. I can only imagine what our lives would be like if this never had existed? However, I think it is such a positive campaign that Dove is putting on and hopefully these types of videos will help all the young girls that fall to believe that final product is not the norm.
ReplyDeleteI agree with npatel as well. Makeup is used to slightly alter the way you will look. However, the technological capabilities of digital manipulation extend far greater than makeup can. The Dove example shows the great extent one can use these tools to alter yourself. If someone feels the need to alter there own image, then I really don't have an objection to that. They are making changes for their own benefit. This is a difference from deceptive advertising, where they are making changes for their own benefit by deceiving consumers.
ReplyDelete"My question is this: is it so much of a sin to make someone (or something) look its absolute best?"
ReplyDeleteAirbrushing and retouching does not make someone look their absolute best - it attempts to make them prettier than they naturally looked in that photoshoot, suggesting that the way they appeared at that moment simply wasn't good enough, that the way they look in real life isn't appealing enough and needs to be manipulated to be visually satisfying. I might at one moment enjoy seeing myself airbrushed to look like I am super-skinny and have a perfect complexion, but realistically I would know looking at that photo that I don't truly look like that AND, inevitably, it would just make me starve myself and cake on the makeup to try to be that SUPPOSEDLY "better-looking" image that I truly am not, have never been, and will never be.
While I agree with most that manipulation certainly has its benefits and no it is not a sin to make someone look their absolute best. However the question remains- who defines absolute best? Images presented in the media, advertisements and through celebrities often define this idea of 'looking your absolute best.' Many are unaware of the avenues taken to portray such perfect images and thus do not understand their inability to match up to such standards. Make-up on the other hand is used to alter general looks, not completely change your projected image. Likewise, digital manipulation to slightly alter or touch up an image/product is acceptable. Manipulation to completely change the original image or product possibilities is when the practice becomes a 'sin.'
ReplyDeleteI agre with many people when I say that digital manipulation has pros and cons. Everyone wants to look their best, especially on their wedding day. That day will be remembered for the rest of their lives. I do not believe it is a sin to make someone look its absolute best. I think people should make themselves look however they want if that makes them happy. However, it gets a little bit iffy when talking about making something look its best when it is almost kind of false advertising. However, I think as long as it was an actual picture rather than completely constructed with the use of technology, then I think in some ways that the advertising is necessary for the product to be profitable.
ReplyDeleteMy comment to this is similar to that I made in response to the digital manipulation post. I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to look your best. Digital manipulation is a great tool for perfecting those wedding day mishaps (ie. last minute pimple that decides to show up in the middle of your forehead). I think such digitally enhanced photographs are fine in the media as well. However, I don't compare myself to these images. I look at magazine covers and immediately think to myself that this is obviously touched up. I don't feel compelled to assimilate to the images I see. I do think that this is an issue for some though. There are a lot of societal pressures to be thin and "perfect". However, this is not the case with many (even the models we see in media images). I don't have conclusive thoughts on what to do about this. I feel like there are plenty of people that know not to succumb to societal pressures, but then there are plenty that don't.
ReplyDeleteI think that the real question is not whether or not to portray a person in his or her best light, it is whether or not to use manipulation that takes something from best light to absolutely fake. Also,it is the ethical question of using those creations in persuasion to buy products etc. There is a balance I think here (as in so many of the ethical questions we've talked about in this class).
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is a sin to manipulate a photo, but it does take away from the idea of real beauty if you think about it. Many of your points are true, yet make our society seem very self absorbed with our image. Not everyone can afford a professional photographer at their wedding. I agree that most people would like something changed (better) about their appearance, but it is important to think about the Dove advertisement from the presentation. Society should not be obsessed with appearance, although it is a reality to some extent.
ReplyDeleteDigital manipulation and photoshop programs are very fun to play with, but we do not want it to negatively affect our society's image of what we should all look like. It negatively affects young girls. I agree that there is a large part of society that is not obsessed with looks, but the others become to obsessed. With other products being advertised, do we want to see an altered picture of food or furniture or electronic equipment that one might buy/ eat?