Arranged Delirium

From a blender’s point of view, I think that using photoshop on images isn’t as bad as they are saying in this article.  I think that if people don’t know by now that ads are photoshopped to the point of perfection, then they need to crawl back in their cave and stray away from advertisements.  I don’t necessarily agree with changing the size of a person, but if they do things like they did with this model, the consumers will not look at the ad and say, “I want that,” therefore hurting the company and making it their own fault.  I look at photographs like artwork.  If the artist chooses to change the lighting or the skin texture, well then so be it.

My first personal experience with Photoshop occurred when I was fifteen. Being 105 lbs I had very high confidence and decided to “dabble” in the world of modeling. After a photo shoot, I patiently awaited my photos to be mailed from California. I opened to the first picture, and staring back was my face, with so many effects that I looked like I had strong Asian descent and my arms were comparable to the handle of a broomstick. However, at the time, being comfortable in my own skin denounced any ideas that this Photoshop job was wrong and manipulative to girls who were not as confident as me. Now, as I enter adulthood, I am no longer that tiny 105 pound girl and so body image has become more important. Seeing super-skinny digitally altered women does cause me to have that instantaneous thought of, “is it possible to look like that”? Luckily, I have enough confidence not to fall for the tricks and treats of “Photo shopped” ads, and never became sick with an eating disorder or hate for my body. I do agree that some of the exaggerated photos probably promote distorted and negative body image in teen girls and children, as stated by Nathalie Atkinson. However, after reading the articles, I found myself defending Photoshop. I disagree with Pamela Pfiffner when she states that Photoshop is a double-edged sword. I believe that Photoshop holds the possibilities for a way to enhance older pictures, and create new forms of personal art. It is the digital photo masters that take advantage of the program to use for photos such as the picture of Filippa Hamilton and her 5 inch waist. Therefore, it is not Photoshop that needs altering; it is the advertising companies, the modeling agencies, the photographers that need “retouched” to change the negative effects of these images on younger generations. However, advertising is a form of art, and more importantly it is a business. Therefore, the pictures need to capture the attention of consumers. Fashion has always been in a league of its own. Many runways from New York City to Paris are full of designers’ clothes that will never be worn off the runway. Therefore, if is it an art to design clothes that falsify real worn fashion, then why not create images that are just as creative and exaggerated? So, to find common ground, critics need to stop placing the blame on a program that may be used for more than transforming women into glowing, tan, super-thin beings, and into the laps of the people who make sure the world sees them. Let us begin to recreate what is beautiful by showing more “real” pictures, more full-figured women, more imperfect skin and teeth. However, let us keep the digitally remastered pictures for the sake of advertising that catches the eye and that makes consumers want to buy a product. Without these falsified images, nothing in media will look promising. No one will buy wrinkle creams, hair conditioner, or whitening strips, if they do not see the results before purchase. Therefore, if it is alright to take down big business industries and let the economy suffer more, then sure, new media should be raw and real. It is just something to think about.

For me a picture well retouched by Photoshop can perfectly be a piece of art. Some of the pictures (landscapes especially) can almost take my breath away, I take my time to appreciate them and while I am doing that I can feel lots of different emotions, just like the ones I feel when looking at a painting.

However, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the over retouch of the models that appear on magazines.  Perception is not reality, but sometimes magazines and advertisers can make us think that it is. At that moment, the boundary between real and fake blurs and we don’t know anymore what reality means.

For that reason, I do not agree with the excessive use of Photoshop, because I think that the point of presenting people so unreal is to make people unhappy with themselves so that they think by buying certain kind of products they will be happy again…

There is no question that Photoshop is a great tool and in today’s society, it can have endless and unlimited uses. The question at hand is when is it appropriate to use? I think that altering photos is such a great feature and allows one to create a certain art. However, the line between perfection and what actually is, can become skewed, especially when it involves a person. Obvious reason today for photo shopping people like those seen ads is to sell these products. It is understandable that a company wants to have the best image displaying their product and that the use of Photoshop can only help. The question is how much does that altered image change what their product actually does. False advertisement can become a problem if one image is portrayed a certain way but does not actually do what is shown in pictures. Models/celebrities are the most obvious choices for touch ups using Photoshop because they have a certain image that they must keep. We all know these people are not as perfect as they may seem and creates a in way, false advertisement. Body image is the biggest issue that comes into question and as we saw in the article you posted, some photo shops can create a bad image. It is one that is in a way not attainable because the person really does not look like that. It makes you spend more money on beauty and that is what a company’s ultimate goal is, to draw the consumer in and make money.

I agree with Alura’s comment that “it is not Photoshop that needs altering; it is the advertising companies, the modeling agencies, the photographers that need ‘retouched’ to change the negative effects of these images on younger generations.”  Photoshop doesn’t have its own agenda; it is the people who put it to use who need to be aware of its effects.  And while I agree with Mike that most people now are aware of the prevalence of Photoshop in the advertising world, we do need to be aware of its effects on the body images on young girls and boys, who may not be as technologically-savvy. The question is, though, where should the line be drawn?  After all, even if Photoshop never existed, models would still be super-skinny and held in high regard for their beauty, which could be altered even without Photoshop thanks to the best professional makeup artists and hairdressers, as well as tricks of lighting and photography.  Should we ban these tricks of the trade as well?  If not, then how can we make the distinction that using Photoshop is “bad,” but hiring a 6 foot 5, 95 pound model is ok?

In my opinion, Photoshop is not that bad as the passage says.
The advertisement is something pursuing the benefit, so sometimes they modify their photos to attract more consumers. I think this is reasonable. Of course, if someone use Photoshop to exaggerate his product’s feature, that may cause false propaganda, or violate the Law of Combating Unfair Competition. To avoid this, the merchants can use other methods to make the photos seem better, say, changing the angle when taking photos, wearing some make-up, putting the model under strong light and so on. While those who changed the skin color from a police photo is not appropriate, this kind of behavior also may break the law. As for making the model seems very skinny, I think everybody has his own judgment. For some pictures, we know it’s artificial at the first sight, we will just see it, so criticism on this has no sense.
For the Queen’s portrait mentioned in this paragraph, I wanna say that this is legal and very convenient to the subject (here is the queen). Why don’t we use Photoshop to make it? Putting somebody in the place he has never been to is also one of the motivation I want to study Photoshop. I don’t see anything inappropriate in that. At least, studying Photoshop is for our amusement and appreciation.
Using Photoshop to modify and embellish photos taken by myself is no problem. My friends and my family can see a more perfect me. That is to say, using it as a personal use is fine. When considering using Photoshop in a commercial purpose, I think people should have a random or extent. After all, people use ads to attract others’ eyeballs. But if breaking rules and norms, it is not allowed or it is forbidden.

Reading most of the above posts echoes most of what I have been thinking in regard to the issues surrounding Photoshop as is used by advertising companies, modeling agencies, and various other media outlets.  I believe that Photoshop allows people to enhance images in a way that can be a great creative outlet, but at the same time, there is a line that is being crossed in regard to the retouching of images of people.  It is to a point where questions of ethics have to be asked.  Is it ethical for an industry to be publishing material that urges both men and women to attempt to attain an ideal body image that is ultimately almost impossible to reach? As is mentioned above, some may say that it is common knowledge, and therefore we should not be fooled, and to a certain extent, I agree—when it comes to adults who should know better. But what about when these products are being marketed to impressionable young children?  For instance, while Cosmo magazine may be geared toward a slightly more mature audience, Seventeen magazine targets girls much younger than the age of 17.  This magazine features comparable ads and photos of the “ideal” woman, which have all been photoshopped or retouched in some way, thereby succeeding in encouraging a distorted view of what beauty really is, and what is attainable and what is not.  These images have become so commonplace in our society that many people do not think to question the effects this has on America’s youth.  If models were shown in a real light, imperfections and all, young women would be more likely to embrace what makes them different instead of trying to conform to some obscure idea of perfection.  This could help prevent dangerous behaviors such as anorexia, bulimia, and the use of diet pills in both young men and women.

When I found out that we would be working with Photoshop in this class, my first thoughts were my pictures from my semester abroad.  I have yet to get them printed and I’ve been wanting to “alter” them (possibly with Photoshop) before doing so.  After reading the articles on Photoshop however, I realize that this may not want to be my course of action.  The current argument with Photoshop is that is distorts our perception of reality.  If I were to alter these photos, my family and friends would not be able to share the same experience I saw when taking these photos of Paris, Montpellier, and Morocco during my travels there.  They would instead be seeing a distorted reality of my semester. 

Think about when you look at the photos in National Geographic magazine.  When I see a picture of the Eiffel Tower in the magazine that has been altered.  You travel to the country with this predetermined image in your head of what the Eiffel Tower will look like and when you do finally see it, it does not match the image in your head.  Are you disappointed?

This may not be the same case for everyone, but it is something to think about. 

I’d like to draw your attention to one other issue that I found interesting.  The photo of Katie Couric, from the 15 Photoshop disasters link, as been “Photoshopped” to make her look thinner.  Her response to that photo, “I liked the first picture better because there’s more of me to love”.  I think that this says alot about her character and shows that the is proud of her body and for the public to see her true size, whatever that may be. 

While it seems that I am totally against the Photoshop product itself, I do see the benefits of it, such as photo restoration. 

As for its use in advertisements, I think that companies should be careful in how much they use the program.  Companies have beautiful models to help promote their products.  How do they feel when they are not portrayed as their true selves?  How does this affect teens in society?