Photo Editing of Famous People and Places
Should models be ‘touched up’ with photoshop editing?
This post comes on the back of a report which the cosmetics manufacturor Olay has been slammed for its photographs of Twiggy, the legendary British supermodel of the sixties who is modelling certain lines for them. Twiggy is now in her sixties and still, as far as I am concerned an attractive woman but she looks nothing like the woman Olay have turned her into with their use of photographic software. Having seen the photographs she looks quite literally, half her actual age and given the nature of the product they sell I think that is misleading. People in the UK know that Twiggy was most famous in the sixties so by definition must be in her late fifties or sixties so what are Olay trying to achieve?
I have long wondered about the extent to which any photograph should be manipulated, be it person or place. On the one hand you could argue that both men and women are given make overs before a television appearence or photo shoot so airbrushing is simply an extension of that but where do you draw the line? Should a line be drawn? Magazines have come under fire before for making women look much younger and slimmer, I wonder how comfortable some of these women are about it?
There has been a lot of debate in the photographic world recently about when does a photo stop being a photo and become a computer generated image, the world of landscape and wildlife photography is often a hot bed for this type of debate. I see a lot of landscapes which have been edited to the point of looking like something from a sci-fi/fantasy magazine and I wonder what the point is.
I will always maintain that there should be room for all kinds of art and what can be done with editing software is often incerdibly clever but there has to be some reality check in place for certain genres. Should a cosmetics company really turn a sixty year old former model into a thirty year old on the back of selling one of their beauty products? Personally I think not.
Miles,
good post. For me it breaks down inti two areas.
Adverts are a bit different, I think the implication with Twiggy is that it is the lotion that account sfor her looks when the biggest aspect is a superb make-up artist, good photographer and good after shot processing.
Personally I’m not in favour of altering actual images i.e. making hips smaller and the like.
I don’t see anything wrong with playing around with what is alreday there though.
Some newspapers need to be watched as they are now making composite pictures, putting two people together from two images, I don’t like ‘making your own pictures’ plus of course I believe that to be suggestively misleading.
Cheers
Rod
December 17, 2009 @ 8:05 am
Miles,
How many times have we all been watching a programme or film where a painting of someone hangs above the mantelpiece? More often than not the image is very flattering, even bordering on Disney. How would I feel if that was a painting of me…. well in matters such as this, I’m too much of a realist and I’d hate the deception. The public know this about magazine covers and articles so they are looking for signs of air-brushing and manipulation and just assume every image is doctored…. bit sad that. Cosmetic companies have lots of competition so I don’t see them changing their tactics any day soon but an honest approach might actually sell more product in my opinion.
I say all this Miles, but really I hate having my picture taken flattering or otherwise…. the very thought of it fills me with dread. Perhaps you have to have an enormous ego or perhaps you have to be a ruthless business person who knows these images sell and on-lookers believe what they see?
Cid
p.s. for my next business venture I’ll be plucking a northern, ex engineer out of vintage book selling obscurity and turning him into the next Twiggy, with nothing more than a blonde wig and a couple of pots of organic mud pack
I’d be very grateful if you could take the photos though while I apply the air-brush paint directly to the model via a robotic car re-spray arm…. if nothing else Citroen might be interested 
December 17, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Miles and gang,
Check out this “Dove evolution” YouTube video. It’s short and absolutely amazing. Shows just what you’re talking about here, Miles. And we wonder why young women (and older women) struggle with self esteem issues. It’s hard when they are comparing themselves to a “doctored” image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
Melissa
December 17, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Miles,
A thoughtful post. I would agree that there is always room for art and amazing images can be created with photography and software.
However, I prefer the photography of nature, being landscape, people, animals to be more or less unaltered and captures in the natural state. If altered then it should be declared as such.
“I wonder how comfortable some of these women are about it?” I, personally would be very uncomfortable being subsequently seen in my ‘true’ image.
Whilst I agree with Cid about people’s awareness of image manipulation, not everyone is and many people remain vulnerable about their own self esteem. Age or gender do not matter in this regard.
Anne
December 17, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Great comments everyone, it will be interesting to see if there is a stronger backlash to this but somehow I doubt it.
Miles
December 17, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks for this Miles!
There is more than digital enhancement at issue here . . .
There is Botox and other poisons and fillers such as Restylane to plump up facial lines(which Twigs has a LOT of in her cheeks) , inject sculpting and laser skin resurfacing going on - none of which count as “plastic surgery” because they are not surgeries. These are expensive, varying degrees of temporary and extremely effective in making one look young.
Then there is expert makeup application and lighting as was shown so beautifully in the video that Melissa flagged for us.
THEN there is photo enhancement, which was chilling in the Dove video. The already beautiful, prepared model’s neck was lengthened by an inch or two and her eyes were made proportionally the size of a 4-year old relative to her other features. (As my favorite Prof. used to point out - we as primates will respond more positively to a neotenous appearance and care more for it as we would for an infant.)
Does all this add up to deception - yes, in my opinion, absolutely it does. But more importantly, I think it leads ordinary people down some slippery slopes of self-mutilation because they think they need to play the game like filmstars and celebs do.
We caught a good documentary recently in BBC America called “Super Botox Me” with late 30-something journalist Kate Spicer - who took a tour through some of these treatments in NY and LA. It was really quite frightening to see her going through some of those things. I recommend it if you haven’t seen it already. Also, has anyone seen Alison Moyet lately? She looks 20 years younger than she did 30 years ago. . .)
On a related note, I used to have a family friend who died of AIDS and he told me that when he was very sick but still ambulatory, he got more compliments than he had ever gotten in his life from passers-by. They all told Vin how wonderful he looked with his skinny new frame and pressed him for info on how he lost so much weight.
December 17, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Laura,
A great comment, it’s quite incredible isn’t it? My gym is full of men in their late forties who are taking steroids and growth hormone to ‘look good’. Unfortunately they don’t and their vital organs aren’t thanking them either.
Why people care so much about other people’s opinions of their looks I don’t know. It’s dangerous ground, it really is. As for your late friend well, it’s a shame to say but I’m not suprised. How sad.
Miles
December 17, 2009 @ 11:27 pm