Photoshop World... It's All A Lie

Over the last couple of days we've taken a fairly in depth look at photo manipulation in the media. This exploration has included the dissection of the Dove Evolutions Ad, several photos that have been altered for multiple reasons (i.e. O.J. Simpson's photo made darker to look more menacing) and the false advertising of one particular beach through the use of stock photos. To be honest, the advertisement for the beach didn't bother me much. It showed a woman in a bathing suit in front of a shoreline. While I didn't agree with the company's reasons for using a stock photo (cutting cost, which proved to be untrue) I think that since the focus of the photo was the woman in the swim wear rather than the scenery it really doesn't deserve a great deal of fuss.

Having said that, I've found some of the other photo manipulation extremely disturbing. For instance, taking a photo of Julia Robert's face and putting it on a picture of her body from five years ago. Robert's is attractive enough, there's no need for that. I've found a few more examples, shown below, in which the changes made are entirely unnecessary and incredibly extreme. Look at these photos of Kiera Knightly. In the original she is extremely flat chested, her eyes are wider, her eyebrows are slightly more unruly, and she has less muscle definition. In the edited photo all those things, along with the over all colour of the photo, are completely altered. Certainly it is necessary to change the photo for the publicity of the film (King Arthur), generally to draw the audience's eye to the poster is was used for... but to change her chest from an A cup (maybe) to a B or C? That was not needed. She was beautiful before hand, and more natural looking. I highly doubt that people in King Arthur's time looked as though they were wearing a pound of makeup... why make her look like a clown when her face already suited the part? Take a look for yourself.



Now, take a look at this one, which is NOT for a movie poster, but instead for a magazine cover. In the "before" picture Kirsten Dunst is already a small size, with pretty features and beautiful skin. In the "after" shot she looks as though she has been molded like a barbie doll and left in the sun too long. Her hip bones jut out, her face looks burned, and she's magically lost about ten pounds off of her already petite frame. Necessary? No. She was beautiful before.



Our perception of beauty is being completely skewed by this type of manipulation. Our perception of everything is being manipulated by media. Certainly there are companies that are trying to reverse this problem, for instance the Dove campaign... however such efforts are difficult to take seriously when you look at the fact that Dove and Axe (a company which exploits women as objects in their advertising) are under the same management. It's sickening. Yet another reason why I don't buy magazines and don't watch television. The only magazine I do read (Today's Parent) is even guilty of manipulation. For crying out loud, children are beautiful as they are. Take a look at this picture of my son and tell me he's not worth putting on a cover, without adding a pound of make up and altering his cheekbones!



Photoshop is fun, when you use it just for kicks, but I think it's time the world sees things as they truly are... not as they are after 10 hours in a studio.