Image Manipulation in The Media: Creating Unachievable Idealism

It is no secret that the media manipulates the truth in photos. Any time you open a magazine and or see a photo of a model posted online, chances are, you are aware of the manipulation. Photo editors often make models appear skinnier with larger, brighter eyes, pearly white teeth, and flawless skin; picture perfect, as we’ve come to know and sometimes even love. As the use of Photoshop and other photo manipulation software have become more prominent, an ethical debate has begun swirling amongst us. Is it ethical to digitally alter someone’s face, someone’s body, or even someone’s environment? Is the media creating unachievable idealism of what it means to be beautiful?

Changing a Face

In 2013, an untouched photo of famed singer, Beyoncé Knowles’ L’Oréal campaign was leaked to the public (Prakash, 2015) (see Appendix A). In the photo, Beyoncé’s skin is altered to create a smooth, flawless finish. The makeup is also enhanced, as the blush is darkened and the lipstick is made crisper. Neither L’Oréal nor Beyoncé issued a public statement following the leak of the original, unaltered image (Prakash, 2015). Beyoncé fans did take to social media, expressing distaste toward those mocking the singer. She’s getting older—blemishes and wrinkles are to be expected.

This comparison of untouched versus re-touched is a prime example of what the public has come to expect in regards to Photoshop. Beyoncé still looks like Beyoncé. Yes, her skin is significantly smoothed, but the integrity of her face has not been lost. Anyone who is familiar with Beyonce could glance at this image for a single second and recognize it as being her. There are still small flaws left in the image, such as stray eyebrow hairs, to give it an authentic feel. Being that this photoshoot was being done for a makeup campaign, Photoshopping of the skin is to be expected. The job of the photographers and editors is to highlight the product and this depicts a job well done. This example of manipulation is tasteful, anticipated, and harmless.

Changing a Body

In 2014, a photo editor for Target.com altered a junior bikini model into having what has become known as a “thigh gap” (Murray, 2014) (See Appendix B). The alternation not only was dramatic, as it chiseled away a portion of the teenager’s thigh and buttocks, but it almost appeared as though it was unfinished. Once customers noticed the mockery, an outrage emerged on social media. Target issued a public statement apologizing for the images and immediately removed them from the website (Murray, 2014).

This particular example of photo manipulation is pitiful. First and foremost, the model is a teenage girl modeling a bikini bottom to fellow teenage girls. Children and teenagers ought to experience minimal manipulation, as they are not understanding of why the manipulation is taken place. As adults, we understand the media’s desire for perfection; children may be left feeling as though they simply were not good enough or thin enough. Furthermore, the alteration does not even appear to be professional. If alterations are to occur, it’s best that they are done in a subtle way that maintains the primary integrity of the image.

Changing an Environment

In 2006, a photographer for Reuters, Adnan Hajj, altered a photo capturing an Israeli air raid on Beirut (Heussner, 2009) (See appendix C). In the original image, the city is covered by a cloud of grey smoke. In the altered image, the city is covered in a more prominent, darker grey cloud of smoke. After bloggers caught the manipulation, Reuters issued a public apology and removed the photos from the site. Reuters insists that all photographers and publishing staff are made aware that there is a “zero tolerance policy” in regards to photo alteration (Heussner, 2009).

Despite the backlash of the alteration, the change is not awfully drastic. When looking at the changes in the photo, it is obvious the contrast of the entire image was altered. Yes, the result depicted the clouds as being darker as they were, but it also significantly sharpened the photograph. It would be difficult to tell whether the editing was done with intent of altering the message of the image. The size of the smoke cloud has been increased, but not to an extent that it would inflict a different reaction in a viewer. After all, there was an air raid on Beirut and the image shows just that--an air raid on Beirut.

Conclusion

The use of image manipulation software takes finesse. There are times when image manipulation can be a wonderful thing and times when it can be downright inappropriate and even insulting. Much like plenty of other things in life, the use of Photoshop takes balance. Enhancing images with a wholesome purpose is relatively harmless. For instance, if a brand is trying to sell a purple blouse and the color comes off as a bit drab, there’s no true harm in brightening the color a bit or adding contrast to the photo to make the purple stand out more. This does not mean white-washing an African model to make the purple stand out, but perhaps manipulating the background. So long as the integrity of the image remains intact, photo manipulation is an industry practice that is to be expected and, at times, even applauded.