Photoshopping . . . etiquette(?)

[Yvaine]

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.

Or have bizarro necks that shouldn't bend that way unless they're made of Silly Putty, or in one Victoria's Secret ad I saw, have their leg muscles in the wrong arrangement in their leg, or the "shine" on their skin is so overdone as to make them look like a plastic doll. 

[Yvaine]

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.

And that is sometimes done even without Photoshop--they'll pin it on. I once ordered a shirt that had a cute body-skimming fit on the model, ordered according to the size chart, and received a shirt I could use as a camping tent.

[lady_disdain]

I am getting the most hilarious ad for photoshopping services! The before picture has obviously been photoshopped to look much worse (big under eye shadows, contrast upped so all sorts of freckles show up, wrinkles, etc). The after picture, of course, has been over photoshopped so the model looks like a plastic doll with coloured contacts.

[JenJay]

It really bothers me when some exec or editor decides to "fix" something that the subject doesn't think is wrong. There have been quite a few actresses who've publicly complained that photos were edited to make their body something it is not - boobs bigger, waist thinner, hair thicker, skin smoother, etc. I think when it makes the person go "Hey! What's wrong with me as-is?!" then it's wrong. If the subject is all for it I might go  but it wouldn't upset me.

Personally, if I was an exec and my photo was used for promotional materials and someone wanted to remove a pimple or something that'd be cool. If they wanted to give me a fake tan, white teeth, younger complexion, etc. I wouldn't like it. I'd hope I had earned my position on merit so as long as my appearance is appropriate for the job leave my face alone!

[Devix]

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.

Belly button, knees, elbows.  The most common mistake is that people will be so immersed in trying to perfect the skin that they will completely delete the model's belly button or even their knees.  I don't know how many times I've had to look over proofs and see that the model magically lacks a belly button because someone got a little trigger happy with the clone tool. 

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?

Wait until you see them without makeup on.   
It brings you back down to earth and makes you realize that these girls look just like you with the only difference being that they're taller.  I actually had an "Aha!" moment working on a shoot once and was talking to a model getting her hair and makeup done when I accidentally blurted out that she looked like just the other women on the street (in my defense I was just starting out and completely embarrassed as soon as those words left my mouth).  Thankfully, she cracked up and thought it was the funniest thing telling me I should see what she looked like after being woken up by her baby at 2 am.

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). 

Yes, but that is advertising for ANY product.  The food in most of those food ads aren't even edible, cars have been polished and expertly detailed, politicians have had makeup artists and hairdressers go to town.  This is the marketing world as a whole and you'd be hard pressed to find any kind of ad selling a product that hasn't made their product artificially better. 

Especially with bras, ads usually show much more lift than you can actually get with that product.

See, I don't know how you can get mad at advertizes when you (general you) yourself are looking for some kind of product that gives you something you don't have.  You (again, the general you) don't have a naturally full or perky bust but you're looking for a bra that will give that illusion which is misleading in and of itself.  No one has those big, full lashes but how can you be mad at a mascara company about faking their product when you are looking to use it to fake those lashes yourself? 

[Slartibartfast]

I think the difference is, the whole point of makeup is to change your looks.  Yes, I get that food is often not what it seems (although I think they do have to use real food, even though they hand-paint on grill lines and such), but the point of food is how it tastes, not just how it looks.  If I can't find out what a company's makeup looks like on its own without computer enhancement, why would I buy it?

[WillyNilly]

I think the difference is, the whole point of makeup is to change your looks.  Yes, I get that food is often not what it seems (although I think they do have to use real food, even though they hand-paint on grill lines and such), but the point of food is how it tastes, not just how it looks.  If I can't find out what a company's makeup looks like on its own without computer enhancement, why would I buy it?

Exactly.  I'm never going to put an elephant on my car, so I don't care that the image in the print ad has one, and the suspension isn't ruined - the point of the ad is to inform us how strong the frame is.  The car itself isn't altered - maybe it s bit shinier, or has tinted windows, but the basic shape and size of the car is still accurately portrayed.  If my fast food burger was made individually and not ever wrapped in paper and tossed into a aluminum trough the bun wouldn't be squished and the cheese wouldn't be off center. I don't expect that the frozen dinner will actually be in a lovely ceramic  bowl inside the box - I just care that it really is the ingredients and nutritional facts listed.  If I doctored up my microwave food I could get it to look that good too - its just more effort then most people will do.  Its really the product, its just the food shown in its absolute best way possible. 

But if an ad is telling me the mascara its selling will lengthen my lashes, and its showing lashes that have been digitally lengthened, I can't trust that the mascara is even being shown in the ad at all.  Its just a picture of a lovely model with crazy perfect lashes that have been so enhanced the mascara itself is actually no longer present.  If the model's skin has been "airbrushed" then the foundation is no longer being shown.  If extra shine has been digitally added to the lips, its not really the lip gloss that I'm seeing shine. 

Its possible to wax my car and tint the windows in real life, its not possible to digitally add eyelashes to my body. Its possible to get a perfect burger in real life, however unlikely, still possible, its not possible to actually shrink pores to invisible.  That's my issue.

[BuffaloFang]

I think this is really just a case of the bar constantly being raised, only to find we are now at unreachable levels.

For example, makeup used to not be standard for all women to wear.  But once it did become standard, advertisers had to find some way to make their movie stars/actresses/etc look superior. Where to turn? Airbrushing.  But soon everyone catches on and now everyone has some sort of airbrushed senior picture/glamourshot/etc. Airbrushing is now the norm.  So if a makeup company didn't use photoshop, their product would seem inferior to "everyday life."

I mean, I could get upset with all the women who use makeup, effectively forcing me to waste an hour ever morning or resign myself to looking plain in comparison, or I can just accept that this is the way the world works.  The plumage keeps changing, but we're constantly trying to find ways to make ourselves prettier/shinier/more than the next person.  Once it catches on, something new will be found.  Everything is fake anyway.

As far as whether or not it's rude, I have struggled with that.  I occasionally do touch up our company "mugshots". We make them lose a few pounds, get rid of blemishes, etc.  It does make me wonder if the subject would be offended if they knew, but I need a job so I do what I'm asked.

[flowersintheattic]

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.
-snip-

TBH, I'm shocked at how LITTLE has been done in those pictures, and what has been done is the exact stuff I expect, just minor fixes here and there, making the colors and clothes look better, etc. I am surprised to find that they photoshop out the straps to get the bandeau cleavage...I always assumed they used too-small tops and photoshopped out the bulges.

Overall, though...I'm for photoshop in advertising when it's used like it is in that example. Fix some minor flaws and make the subject (whether a person, clothes, a car, or food) look its best. Like others, I don't pay attention to cosmetic ads because I find them really misleading. I honestly think that's the most egregious use of photoshop out of all of them.

For professional portraits, I think you make the person look their best in a way that's consistent with their actual appearance. I can't imagine being photoshopped in my wedding pictures to the point where I don't look like myself, but if the photographer can even out my complexion a bit and fix the lighting I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[Morrigan]

I am getting the most hilarious ad for photoshopping services! The before picture has obviously been photoshopped to look much worse (big under eye shadows, contrast upped so all sorts of freckles show up, wrinkles, etc). The after picture, of course, has been over photoshopped so the model looks like a plastic doll with coloured contacts.

Look up Glitz Pagent Photoshops.

First link...

Soulless dolls after the photoshopping is done.  So creepy...

[sunnygirl]

I think the excessive use of photoshop is destructive to society and feminism, and is partly to blame for anorexia nervosa, female body dysmorphia, etc. It's not a question of removing the odd zit, it's that the entire industry bombards young women 24/7 with relentless, wall-to-wall images of 'what women are supposed to look like' that are in fact not physically attainable at all. It's just another way for the patriarchy to control the 'unacceptable' female body -- this is something that's been going on in one way or another for centuries. It's like corsets or foot binding, just another form of control because patriarchal society is threatened by the natural female body.

I modelled (including a lingerie campaign for La Senza) throughout my undergrad degree (specialising in women's studies within Anthropology) and I don't think modelling or underwear modelling is inherently anti-feminist, but I had a lot of issues with specific elements which I feel are unnecessary.

[Adelaide]

Especially with bras, ads usually show much more lift than you can actually get with that product.

See, I don't know how you can get mad at advertizes when you (general you) yourself are looking for some kind of product that gives you something you don't have.  You (again, the general you) don't have a naturally full or perky bust but you're looking for a bra that will give that illusion which is misleading in and of itself.  No one has those big, full lashes but how can you be mad at a mascara company about faking their product when you are looking to use it to fake those lashes yourself?

I'm enhancing what I have, not creating something out of thin air. If an ad shows a model my size wearing a bra and the ad has been photoshopped, it leads me to believe that bra can provide that level of enhancement. Same with the mascara ads. There's a difference in actually being able to achieve length with that product and using a model who has false lashes on.

Even if you don't buy that argument, I'm not presenting myself in a fashion that's as heavily altered as these ads. I'm wearing a bra that gives me more support, but I'm not presenting myself as having enormous assets. I'm wearing mascara that makes my eyelashes 1/2", but not presenting myself as someone with 2" lashes and I can't "fake" them like you can with the click of a mouse. And besides all of that, I'm not "selling" myself for money. I'm also not selling myself in a facetious manner. You can look at a girl and tell that she has a push-up bra on or Spanx or mascara. You can't always look at an ad and realize to what extent the product advertised won't match up with its performance.

[BabylonSister]

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. 

[...]

To me, this is not really the same as wearing make up or Spanx. A person can choose to wear make up or undergarments that optimize their silhouette in situations where it matters, and to have a more natural appearance in private. With Photoshopping, there is no such option because it's just work done on a picture, not on the actual individual.

[CaptainObvious]

There is a Victoria Secret model that does not have a belly button, and they are always saying that it is a photoshop mistake when it isn't. She had an operation as a child and it has resulted in her not having a belly button.

[Yvaine]

There is a Victoria Secret model that does not have a belly button, and they are always saying that it is a photoshop mistake when it isn't. She had an operation as a child and it has resulted in her not having a belly button.

  I didn't know that. I'll have to stop kvetching about that one, I guess.