Photoshopping . . . etiquette(?)

[jpcher]

Not really etiquette, because it's not rude (if permission is given) but I'm wavering on whether it's right, wrong or who cares?

Just wonder what you all think.

I received a portrait shot of Big-Wig to include in a monthly magazine (the photo will be used every month.) I noticed that there was some Photoshopping done . . . probably not noticeable to a lay-person, the Photoshop job really was pretty good. There was just something that caught my eye.

I showed the photo to my Boss and she immediately said we needed to do some color correcting. I pointed out the Photoshop flaw and said that this was the Official-Approved-By-Everybody photo and we really couldn't do anything to it without going through all the approval stages again.


Long story short and getting to my point . . . We received the original un-Photoshopped photo which I superimposed on top of the Photoshopped photo and WOW! There was a whole lotta Photoshopping going on!

Big-Wig (normally fair-skinned in past photos) has a nice tan-on (although a bit off-color), straighter teeth, less wrinkles, and something going on with the eyes. Plus Big-Wig's face is thinner and the neck is a bit longer. All around a very nice Photoshop job making Big-Wig look about 10+ years younger.

I'm wondering what people will think after seeing the photo then meeting Big-Wig in real life!

This is not my problem. I will use whatever photo I'm told to use. That's not my question, it's just an example.


My question is . . . There is a whole lot of Photoshopping being done these days in the news/magazines/advertisements, making people/things look better than they do in real life.

What do you think about this practice? Is it rude to the general public (false advertising?) Is it ethically wrong? Do you wonder about amazing photos that you've seen and think "Yeah, that was Photoshopped."? Or do you believe everything you see?

Is this a topic that nobody cares about? What you see in print is the truth.



Just curious.




(edited to change a sentence.)

[Hmmmmm]

I'm a little bothered by it in advertising.  Not so much fashion photography, but something like an advertisement for makeup using a 55 year old actress who looks like she did when she was 25 because of photoshopping.  That is false advertising to me.

From a personal perspective, I had a "Headshot" done by my company for internal news articles.  It was photoshopped to whiten my teeth to an un-natural white, redness in complexion removed, and  crows feet removed.  I thought it was funny but did wonder what people would think once they met me in person.

My DD had her senior photography session this year, and she has these extremely pale grey eyes.  The photographer darkened them and made them bluer, much closer to my eye color.I had him fix it as I love her eyes and don't think they need enhancing. 

[gramma dishes]

I think it depends on the intended use of the photo.

If it's a teenager having their senior picture taken, then yes, by all means get rid of that giant pimple on the end of her nose.  It probably wasn't there the day before the picture session and it probably wasn't there the day after, so you're not really changing the way she looks.

In advertising, I don't like it but it's been going on before digital photography and Photoshop even actually existed.  Back in film days there was manipulation of photographs too.  You almost expect it and see the picture and your brain "knows" it's not real.

But when it's done just for vanity and completely alters your appearance to the point where it really doesn't represent what you like like at all, well ... I don't know.  It just comes across as being devious somehow.  Would I trust someone who knowingly and intentionally did that with a photograph of themselves?  What else are they hiding?  What else are they not being upfront and forthright about?

[Amara]

It always makes me laugh because I would want to look better in person than in a photograph, not the other way around.

[Devix]

I don't have an issue with it but, then again, it's my line of work.

I really don't see it being all that much different from wearing makeup, dying your hair, wearing a push-up bra / spanks or even wearing heels.  Once your take all those things off then people are actually able to see your real appearance and everything else is just an additive.  Not to mention that there are some people that really just don't photograph well and who look a million times better in person so photoshop helps you duplicate what they look like in person yet the camera just can't seem to capture. 

Like gramma dishes said, it's been going on a whole lot longer than photoshop has been around though I really don't like it being used for the cosmetics/beauty industry.  It does create a sense of false advertising though I feel sorry for the person who sees a beauty ad and thinks they'll automatically look like Angelina Jolie if they wear that brand of foundation. 

[Slartibartfast]

My main issue with it is how it creates an unattainable beauty standard.  Women feel pressured to have impossibly flawless skin and unachievably colored eyes/lips/cheeks/etc.  Most of the pornography photos out there now are photoshopped to make the actresses thinner/curvier/tanner/etc., which means a whole generation of teenage boys have expectations about what a woman's body looks like and they're going to be disappointed when they find out that even porn stars don't have "perfect enough" bodies to photograph as-is.  There's no point trying to judge the effectiveness of mascara, hairspray, razors, hair transplants, etc. because the advertising for those industries relies so heavily on computer-generated "results" which don't even show the product they're advertising.

On the other hand, Photoshop (and other similar programs) make it MUCH easier to take a good photo.  I love being able to tweak the lighting after I shoot, for example.  Editing software gives you the freedom to shift the viewer's focus from "blurry picture of a dance recital" to "ooh, is that your daughter in the last row there?"

[girlysprite]

Photoshop is a tool. There are many tools that come with both reasonable uses and not-so-moral uses. Such tools always create controversy, kind of like guns (hunting and self-defenses versus accidents and use in crime).

First of all, I think a person shouldn't have their picture shopped without their consent. For example, what if the president didn't know about the the photoshopping? He might not like it. People should be in control of how they are presented to the outer world.

As for advertisements: given the amount of body issues that womem have these days, the amount of photoshop used is bot so very ethical. It is partially false advertising, and it creates unrealistic expectations of how a person should look like. It reminds me of something a friend of mine once said: long before photoshop, the models represented the 5% of the prettiest women (pretty being subjective of course). Nowadays, even the models can't match their own pictures anymore.

[Saffy]

Did anyone else see this Jezebel article on the Victoria's Secret model whose un-Photoshopped pics were released?

http://jezebel.com/5951863/when-perfect-isnt-enough-the-unretouched-images-victorias-secret-doesnt-want-you-to-see/gallery/1

It's not an example of awful photoshopping (which VS has often been guilty of!) but it made me incredibly sad regardless. She is GORGEOUS. If she's not good enough, what hope have the rest of us got? That said, warming the images up so it looks more summery does make sense to me...they're selling swimwear.

I have a blog, on which I occasionally post images of myself. The first time I did this I went to Photoshop out my crow's feet, did it, stopped, and reverted it. It felt so dishonest. I will grade the images to give them a certain style (pertaining to my blog) and if I had something that was not a part of me usually, i.e. a big spot or likewise, I'd remove that. But otherwise...no. I'm good enough as I am, and I've earned those lines!

[WillyNilly]

I'll straight up say it: I refuse to even glance at mascara print ads anymore.  Thank goodness for Sephora and their samples!  The photoshoping done in cosmetics and fashion photography I find to be very misleading and in many cases straight up lies (aka false advertising). 

But in a picture not selling anything - a corporate or school photo for example, eh, whatever. So long as the subject gets final approval on that they end up looking like and so long as it reasonably represents their image, I'm fine with it.

[lowspark]

A long time ago, I was gazing at a picture of a woman in an ad in a magazine trying to figure out what was weird about it. Took me a minute but I finally realized, she had no knuckles! I mean her fingers were just smooth with no "wrinkles" (I don't know what else to call them) where her knuckles would be. And it just looked so unnatural. I thought, ugh! Airbrushing run amok. (that's how long ago it was!)

Since then, I became much more aware of how unrealistic some of these pictures are. Some of the models have absolutely no lines anywhere on their body and it just looks so fake. But for the most part, unless something egregious like the knuckle thing happens, I suppose it's not something the average person takes notice of.

[Yvaine]

A long time ago, I was gazing at a picture of a woman in an ad in a magazine trying to figure out what was weird about it. Took me a minute but I finally realized, she had no knuckles! I mean her fingers were just smooth with no "wrinkles" (I don't know what else to call them) where her knuckles would be. And it just looked so unnatural. I thought, ugh! Airbrushing run amok. (that's how long ago it was!)

Since then, I became much more aware of how unrealistic some of these pictures are. Some of the models have absolutely no lines anywhere on their body and it just looks so fake. But for the most part, unless something egregious like the knuckle thing happens, I suppose it's not something the average person takes notice of.

There's a site called Photoshop Disasters that posts a lot of these pics where the model is photoshopped into anatomical impossibility. One had her navel edited out (possibly by accident).

[magicdomino]

In advertising, I don't like it but it's been going on before digital photography and Photoshop even actually existed.  Back in film days there was manipulation of photographs too.  You almost expect it and see the picture and your brain "knows" it's not real.

Airbrushing:  spiffing up Playboy bunnies since whenever Playboy magazine started printing centerfolds.   

Actually it was going on before photography.  A wise portrait painter flattered his subjects just a bit, if he wanted to get more commissions.   

[onyonryngs]

I'm pro-photoshopping when it comes to the ones where people end up getting mysterious extra body parts & when it's me.  I'm also pro-photoshopping for advertising, but I think that way too much photoshopping is done to some photos, not all.  I can understand the reasons for cutting out the model's underwear that she has on underneath a bikini, etc.  But I'm not a fan of the ones that go a bit overboard.  Some of the face shots on magazine covers and cosmetics ads just look like 80s pop art. 

[lady_disdain]

In advertising, I don't like it but it's been going on before digital photography and Photoshop even actually existed.  Back in film days there was manipulation of photographs too.  You almost expect it and see the picture and your brain "knows" it's not real.

Airbrushing:  spiffing up Playboy bunnies since whenever Playboy magazine started printing centerfolds.   

Actually it was going on before photography.  A wise portrait painter flattered his subjects just a bit, if he wanted to get more commissions.   

Elisabeth I's portraits from late in her life are an excellent example.

[Adelaide]

What irritates me is when places use Photoshop to alter the way a piece of clothing hangs. If I see it in an ad I'll try it on and realize that it is much longer/shorter/bunches up in certain places that have been altered in the photo. Especially with bras, ads usually show much more lift than you can actually get with that product.