Once upon a time.. photo editing was a painstakingly long process that was undertaken within the dark room. Before the computer revolution, photomanipulation was achieved by retouching with ink, paint, double exposure, piercing the images and working directly on the negative.
The first recorded photo manipulation was in the early 1860's when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was
altered to include the body from a different man and the head of Lincoln. As seen below, Lincoln on the left has been cut from a different portrait and imposed over the image of John C Calhoun.
For more information on the origins of early photo manipulations check out this BLOG
Fast forward just over 100 years and Photoshop started running professionally. Along with the increase in manipulation comes a significant moral dilemma that remains an issue within the photographic industry and society in general. Where do we draw the line within an image to be an honest representation of reality.
Is an image bound to being the capture of a moment or can we extend the realms of a photograph to include objects and ideas that weren't originally within the frame?
A notable case of a controversial photo manipulation was a 1982 National Geographic cover in which editors moved two Egyptian pyramids closer together so that they would fit on a vertical cover. This case triggered a massive snowballing debate that only increases with further technological advances and the increase in social acceptance of manipulated images.
The question remains, is photojournalism an appropriate genre for photo-manipulations and selective editing when the nature of the genre is based around representing truth and found scenarios as opposed to perhaps fashion photography which relies heavily on created scenes and emulating life in a surrealistic and desired manner in order to sell.
The growing popularity and accessibility of image manipulation has raised concern as to whether it allows for unrealistic images to be portrayed to the public. In her article "On Photography" (1977), Susan Sontag discusses the objectives in photography, "which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored and tricked out". A practice widely used within the fashion industry, the use of Photoshop makes it increasingly difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. With the potential to alter body image, debate continues as to whether manipulated images, particularly those in magazines, contribute to self-esteem issues in both men and women.
Key example of this altered reality within the fashion industry is a recent campaign for Ralph Loren wherein model Fillipa Hamilton was represented in such an overly photoshopped form that her body appears to frail to be supporting her own weight. The image sparked debates world wide about the appropriateness of these images and the implications they have for woman's self image. It also added to the increasing support for a world wide standard to be set in place requiring the media as a whole disclose when an image has been retouched and to what extent.
Since the release and further apology from Ralph Loren the model in question has been release from her contract with Ralph Loren, reasons stated were along the lines that she no longer fulfills the requirements of her contract. However Hamilton has informed the media that she was fired for being too fat. More info HERE .
There is a growing body of writings devoted to the ethical use of digital editing in photojournalism. In the United States, for example, the National Press Photographers Association have set out a Code of Ethics promoting the accuracy of published images, advising that photographers "do not manipulate images that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."
Clearly though this is not the case within the following examples all sourced from blog site, Photoshop Disasters
glasses... an afterthought perhaps?
boobunderarm-syndrome.. or maybe some cloning an body dismorfication gone wrong.
What an interesting looking right hand you have Ms. Portman.
Just twist your body this way but keep your arms that way and extend your arm like its made of rubber
Just when you thought photoshop only distorted womans perceptions of reality, its all balanced off with a stolen six pack.
It could also be argued that a labeling law of any sort would then open up the forum to require warnings on nearly all ads, including those that alter reality in other ways. For example, few roads are as serenely traffic-free as those in car commercials. But here’s the distinction: Although that open road deliberately conveys a bogus sense of driving delight, the road itself is not the product. The car is the product. In fashion ads, however, whether for clothes or makeup or shampoo, the model’s beauty is the product, or at least the direct result the product is meant to achieve. Because that beauty cannot be obtained via the merchandise or is simply easier not to, the touched up image becomes the cheapest and easiest way in which to create the desired selling point. Is this then considerd false advertising?
It’s also easy to imagine even broader warnings that would flag beauty achieved not only electronically but also medically, denoting the particular bits on a model that have been surgically enlarged, reduced or smoothed out.
Warnings or not..being told that you’re watching an ad, even a deceptive ad, does not stop you from desired its effects. We like to think we’re too savvy to be seduced by clever commercial trickery, yet at the supermarket, we are strangely drawn to Coke. Or Pepsi.
The Question Remains
Who is ultimately responsible for an image and its content? Are we to us our own judgment in determining whether we allow ourselves to believe the content we see or should images be passed through some sort of governing body?
Is it ok to remove the pimple from the face of a bride so she may remember all the perfections from her special day not be reminded of that one blemish every time she views her wedding album? If so, does this open up the doors to further editing in the global market as we see in commonplace advertising?
Where do we draw the moral line in the sand... or is it ok as long as noone can tell the image has been altered??
A few more links to help you decide:
Dove Commercial
Retouching: Before and After
Photoshop: The Perfect Lie
A very interesting read there Casey. Its something of a very touchy and fine line. Especially when it comes to fashion/advertising and media (photojournalism). In media/photojournalism the photographers and editors are generally not allowed to do any editing what so ever. In 2003 during the invasion of Iraq by the US Army there was major uproar when a photographer for the LA Times combined two photographs from the same scene to depict a totally different scene. The two photographs in question were of a soilder and a bunch of civilians. In one picture a father stands up holding his child looking at the soilder. In the other the soilder is pointing towards him telling him to take cover and as a result the father and child have turned away. But when the two pictures were combined it gave the impression that the father and child were trying to stand up only to have the soilder standing holding his refle and pointing towards them in a really dominate figure. He didn't mention anything about this when he sent it to them. The image was then posted on the papers internal photo sharing system (Which is linked to a vast amount of other media networks). Media outlets across America ran the photo and it wasn't until someone noticed that there were duplicates of people in the photo that it could of been a fake. Communication was hard to establish at the time and it took a while for the photo to be confirmed by the photographer as a fake. He was fired from his job after it was revealed.
ReplyDeleteI remember that there were some talks by the French government last year to combat this after a report into anorexia and bulimia in children was released. They wanted to limit how much could be airbrushed/photoshoped in an image before a disclaimer would have to be applied, much like how alcohol and car companies have to here. I haven't heard anything since so I'm not sure if this actually past legislation and became law.
I personaly don't mind a little photo editing when it comes to fashion photography. I'm all for adding effects and layers to the photo but when alot of the actual image/model becomes changed to depict something that isn't there then thats what I frown apon. If there is a major overhaul in the image its always good to read what was done. At tafe we can always ask each other how we edited our photos and it would be pretty simple for web based photos to do this but its very difficult for print related stuff as advertising space is critical these days. I said it at the start and I'll say it again. Photo touching is a real touchy fine line and depending on what it relates to then the photographer/editor should tread carefully.
Found the article about it if anyone else wants to have a read - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/fashion/03Boyer.html?_r=1&ref=fashion
ReplyDeleteTHE EVOLUTION OF UNDERSTANDINGS
ReplyDeleteGreat posting, Casey! It got me thinking. Then it troubled me that I didn't know how I felt or might respond to the issues you raised. Two weeks later and I'm still struggling with it. But I do have a few questions....
Is it a lie? Or an understanding? To say that photoshop photomanipulation is the evolution of a lie is to accept that there can be "honest representations of reality", yet I'm not convinced any photo ever achieves that feat. Indeed, I don't know that a photo can be honest or dishonest, although photographers can be either. So, rather than looking for lies within inanimate photographs, it might be better to ask something of the intentions of a cognitive photographer and the interpretations made by their equally cognitive viewers. For example, does the context in which the photographer choses to display their image imply that it shows some truth about an external reality? In photojournalism, yes. In advertising, mostly not (except for people who still believe in the Easter bunny). What's the difference? It is that we interpret images in different ways and that we bring our own understandings to each interpretation—or, to put it another way, meaning doesn't reside within photographs but in how we interpret them (our visual literacy, you might say).
And there's something else that bothers me—you imply that since the advent of photoshop, manipulating images is a lot easier than it used to be. Well, it might be for you, but I reckon using scissors and glue to manipulate photos is still a lot easier than all the complex tools in photoshop. At least, sadly, it still is for me :)
- Just found this info and thought it was rather relevant as well.
ReplyDelete(http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/news/ads_with_real_women_dont_work_155861.asp)
Ads With 'Real' Women Don't Work
A study from Arizona State University, University of Cologne in Germany and Erasmus University in the Netherlands found that campaigns utilizing real sized women, which includes 'plus-sized' models, "are unlikely to work on their intended customers".
"We found that overweight consumers demonstrated lower self-esteem — and therefore probably less enthusiasm about buying products — after exposure to any size models in ads (versus ads with no models). Also, normal-weight consumers experienced lower self-esteem after exposure to moderately heavy models, such as those in Dove soap's 'Real Women' campaign, than after exposure to moderately thin models."
An interesting finding that came from the study was that the size of the reader relative to the size of the model is a factor in self-esteem.