Notice the menacing eyes in the second picture? This rather offensive photo was quickly removed from the USA Today website after criticism and replaced with something much closer to the real thing (yet still retouched!)
Our Purpose
The purpose of this blog is to educate our viewers about the widespread use of retouching in print publications. Retouching implies making minor changes to photographs. However, modern advances in photo editing software allow photographs of individuals to be transformed into manufactured projections of reality.
Mostly commonly, retouching is used to enhance positive characteristics of an individual, although sometimes negative aspects are emphasized. Unlike a Barbie doll or animated character, these retouched images are portrayed as living, unimagined, portrayals of individuals in society. The truth is that most of the images we see in print publications, as well as online, are just as fake as cartoons. When looking at these blog posts, try to think about the effects these images have on yourself and others, especially younger generations.We are not trying to judge the rightness or wrongness of retouching; rather, we want to increase awareness about the prevalence of retouching so that media consumers are able better construct meanings from the images they encounter.
Five Steps to Media Literacy
1. Describe - Describe media product(s) by indentifying noteworthy elements or characteristics.
2. Analyze - Look for patterns that call for closer attention. Categorize those words!
3. Interpret - Try to determine meanings of patterns. What is the connection between the categories?
4. Evaluate - Make an informed judgment about media product
5. Engage - Take some action!
After viewing our blog, we hope you feel better knowing the world often being sold to us is not as perfect as it seems. We encourage you to post comments. Thank you for visiting!
Mostly commonly, retouching is used to enhance positive characteristics of an individual, although sometimes negative aspects are emphasized. Unlike a Barbie doll or animated character, these retouched images are portrayed as living, unimagined, portrayals of individuals in society. The truth is that most of the images we see in print publications, as well as online, are just as fake as cartoons. When looking at these blog posts, try to think about the effects these images have on yourself and others, especially younger generations.We are not trying to judge the rightness or wrongness of retouching; rather, we want to increase awareness about the prevalence of retouching so that media consumers are able better construct meanings from the images they encounter.
Five Steps to Media Literacy
1. Describe - Describe media product(s) by indentifying noteworthy elements or characteristics.
2. Analyze - Look for patterns that call for closer attention. Categorize those words!
3. Interpret - Try to determine meanings of patterns. What is the connection between the categories?
4. Evaluate - Make an informed judgment about media product
5. Engage - Take some action!
After viewing our blog, we hope you feel better knowing the world often being sold to us is not as perfect as it seems. We encourage you to post comments. Thank you for visiting!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Not Always Meant to Flatter
Retouched photos are no stranger to the competitive world of politics. Usually candidates or elected officials are made to look more appealing just like celebrities. However sometimes retouching can offer a different opportunity. Take a look at these before and after photos of then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Retouching: A Hollywood Demand, Not Request
Retouching has become so mainstream today that almost every celebrity has their own freelance retoucher to perfect images of them. Publicists demand this, and what used to be a rarity has become common place among Hollywood elites.
So, these images of perfection can be seen in most (if not every) magazine and television ad. Editors assume that readers understand that the images they see are altered in some way. But, does everyone really have a grasp on just how drastically these images are retouched? Probably not. This can cause feeling of stress for people, especially girls, to achieve the impossible. And when they can't, feelings of failure, hopelessness and loss of control set in. These feelings can be linked to eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia.
So, these images of perfection can be seen in most (if not every) magazine and television ad. Editors assume that readers understand that the images they see are altered in some way. But, does everyone really have a grasp on just how drastically these images are retouched? Probably not. This can cause feeling of stress for people, especially girls, to achieve the impossible. And when they can't, feelings of failure, hopelessness and loss of control set in. These feelings can be linked to eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia.
Faith Hill - Not Pretty Enough
This is a 2007 Rebook cover featuring then 39 year old Faith Hill. Spot all of the edits:
- Extra hair.
- Smoothed eyes.
- Smaller, smoother, cheeks.
- Smaller arm
- Smaller shoulder.
- Back perfected.
- Skin tone changed.
- Dress line changed.
- Right hand removed.
Is this too much editing or should we simply accept that ALL magazine covers are highly retouched?
Not Just Females
Women are not the only ones being retouched in an artificial quest for perfection. Unsuspecting men are also targeted by hollywood artists for the purpose of a virtually unatainable figure of masculine idealism. Washboard abs and bulging arms stand for more than the "norm" of male body image. What does this do for the self-esteem of young men? How could this effect the perception and expectations of women and their views of a male figure?
Real Women? or Real Hypocrisy?
According to a New Yorker article, published in May of 2008, "Pascal Dangin is the premier retoucher of fashion photographs." In the March 2008 issue of Vogue, 144 of images that made it into the magazine were "tweaked" by Dangin (36 fashion pictures, the cover, and 107 advertisments from clients). Clearly, Dangin is one of the best retouchers in one of the best in the business. Here is a brief excerpt from the article:
After Dove received bad press, Dangin claimed he only worked on the Dove Pro-Age campaign and only removed dusted and corrected the image colors. Given the statement above, that seems unlikely. Dove claims they specifically requested no retouching. However, if the photos were edited by an expert like Dangin, how would they know?I mentioned the Dove ad campaign that proudly featured lumpier-than-usual “real women” in their undergarments. It turned out that it was a Dangin job. “Do you know how much retouching was on that?” he asked. “But it was great to do, a challenge, to keep everyone’s skin and faces showing the mileage but not looking unattractive.”
Unless the work is sub-par, it is impossible to know whether or not an image has been retouched. The safe bet: if it is an image in a magazine or an advertisement, then it has been heavily retouched.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Not Only Magazines
Healthy Weight Loss?
This cover of Self magazine offers insight into losing weight and looking your best "your" way. Suggesting healthy ways to lose this weight Self features a picture of a lighter Kelly Clarkson. In fact Kelly has lost no weight and does not plan on it. "I'm never trying to lose weight - or gain it. I'm just being!" said Kelly. Clearly then we can tell how everything from her neck, to her arms, and down to her waste have been dramatically toned down to fit the theme of the cover. This is not even the real Kelly Clarkson and she does not endorse this photo as such, so how are readers supposed to? Does this magazine serve to embrace women of all sizes even if, as in Kelly's case, they are still beautiful?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Magazine Perfection
The perfection complexion. Good news. Girls no longer need Sephora or MAC to look beautiful. They just need photoshop. How are girls supposed to feel okay about their bodies when all the images in magazines are not even real?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Profit Driven Retouching?
One theory about retouching in advertisements is that it's done to create an aspirational concept of beauty that inspires women to buy more products. One may even say these perfectly retouches photos may make them feel bad about their own looks, and to compensate for this feeling they spend money on more and more beauty products. Is it fair that women are comparing themselves to pictures that don't even reflect what a real women looks like?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Another "Retouched" Ralph Lauren Advertisement
Friday, November 20, 2009
Beautiful Reality
In an article titled "True Thighs" published in More magazine Jamie Lee Curtis posed stripped of any makeup and without any retouching enhancements on the final product. This is exactly what she wanted people to see. “There’s a reality to the way I look without my clothes on,” she says. “I don’t have great thighs. I have very big breasts and a soft, fatty little tummy. And I’ve got back fat. People assume that I’m walking around in little spaghetti-strap dresses. It’s insidious — Glam Jamie, the Perfect Jamie, the great figure, blah, blah, blah. And I don’t want the unsuspecting 40-year-old women of the world to think that I’ve got it going on. It’s such a fraud. And I’m the one perpetuating it.” How much of an inspiration is this to female readers? What does JLC's message say about female body image and the role media play in creating this?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Ralph Lauren Turns Skinny Model into Grotesquely Skinny Model
Ralph Lauren has recently taken a lot of heat for using photoshopped images of models in his advertisements. In this case, he was caught when both of these images were shown on differen parts of his Australian website. This hips and waist on this model have been made significantly smaller. What kind of message does this send to young women? If a selling point for clothes is that they make you look thin, then is this false advertising?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Time Magazine: Retouching at its Worst
O.J. Simpson's mug shot was retouched from its original state to show this suspect as a darker and possibly more guilty looking perpetrator. Is this okay? Is this fair? What might this new photo represent in terms of gender and/or stereotypes?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Photoshop Mistakes
Time Lapse Video of a Photo Retouch
It takes a lot of work to make a photo magazine ready. Check out this time lapse video of a photo retouch. It is almost like watching someone sketch a drawing and requires a lot of effort and skill. Notice how perfect she looks at the very end. A lack of imperfections is a clear sign that an image has been photoshopped.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Before and After
Not even a few strands of "wild" hair can hide from the masterful hand (or should i say mouse) of a hollywood retoucher. Here, Penelope Cruz's locks get the good treatment, along with the rest of her body of course. How many changes can you find?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
About Our Main Image
This is a before and after image done by "master retoucher" Amy Dresser. The image was created to show off the power of photo retouching (as well as Amy's skills). Her portfolio includes: Jessica Alba, Gwen Stefani, Rebecca Romijn, Kat Von D, Jenna Jameson, Lil Wayne, Katy Perry, Denise Richards, and Britney Spears. More of Amy's work can be seen here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)