Kate Nolen
Society has been trained to “trust but verify” what they see
in the news, ads, and commercials today. As mentioned in Stop Trusting Viral Videos, photos can be altered and manipulated, or even explained in a way that tells a
story that isn’t exactly true.
When I think about misguided advertising, it seems as though
there are invisible rules when it comes to photo manipulation, especially in commercial
marketing. To one editor, maybe it’s okay to remove a light fixture, move items
in the room around and enhance the background colors in a photo. No changes to
the subjects, so no harm was done, right? To another publisher, it may be okay to change/remove
a person from a photo, or alter it in a way that would grab the viewer’s attention.
To me, there’s a clear delineation in editing a photo because it will make it easier
to view or read a text and editing a photo in a misleading way because it is in
line with whatever narrative the ad or article is going for.
We’ve long known that any time you see someone on a magazine
cover (especially women), they are going to look absolutely flawless in every
photo. I think for a while we didn’t actually know this was due to Photoshop
editing, and took these images at face value, assuming this person was almost
perfect due to dieting, great lighting, and flawless makeup.
There are a couple of iconic examples of this happening, and magazine
editors being called out for their photo manipulations. In 10 Most Famous Doctored Photos,
coming in midway through the list is a 1989 jewel cover photo of Oprah Winfrey.
Only, it’s not really Oprah, at least not all of her. In this photo, we
see Oprah’s head, and Ann-Margaret’s body – neither of the two knew TV Guide
was going to publish this hybrid photo.
 |
| Oprah Winfrey via CNet.com |
It seems as though magazine publishers didn’t learn their lesson,
they just got better at Photoshop. Even better than Oprah’s cover photo, in
2007 Redbook magazine published a stunning photo of Faith Hill, all doctored
up. Once Jezebel got their hands on the original photo, they released it for the world to see.
 |
| Faith Hill courtesy of Redbook and Jezebel |
Unfortunately, this photo editing famous-people-are-perfect non-sense
isn’t just for women. Advertisers also make major changes to their photos of
men as well.
 |
| Justin Beiber via NY Times |
This makes me wonder, do we really have a general
expectation for people on the cover of a magazine to be perfect? What would
happen if you picked up a Vogue and the model on the cover had a zit on her
forehead? Would you throw the magazine to the ground, mortified, and run home?!?
I tend to think that it would take a while to get used to
actually seeing cellulite on someone else’s legs or a patch of gray hair – but wouldn't that help us in the long run be kinder to ourselves in the way we look, and the way we think
we should look based on advertising? Isn’t taking a photo of someone and making
them perfect a lie and just as bad as other types of fake news?
No comments:
Post a Comment