Personal Photoshop

I really enjoyed Monday’s discussion about the laws some European countries are planning on passing about putting disclaimers on any digitally enhanced images. That got me thinking about our culture’s obsession with programs like Photoshop and altering their own photos to appear flawless. I knew a girl in high school who, before posting any picture to Facebook, would edit it in Photoshop to whiten her teeth, get rid of any acne, and even go as far as to make her face thinner. That just seems excessive to me. But when we see these images of beautiful, digitally enhanced people in advertisements, we’re a lot less quick to judge. At the same time, it’s natural that we want to look as “flawless” as these models. So why is it so criticized when a “normal” person slightly enhances their photos when advertisers do that at extreme levels?

Obviously there’s a clear distinction between a picture that’s going to appear on the cover of Vogue versus on the front of someone’s Facebook profile. But then it’s viewed as more socially acceptable when professional photographs are taking for businesses or even family Christmas cards. So maybe it really is that the medium determines the acceptability of enhancement. What might happen if advertisements were forced to publicize when they’re digitally enhanced but then personal media were not? I think it would be really interesting to see the dynamic between advertisements and consumers if personal cards and photos slowly became more edited and “perfect” than the images we see in magazines and on billboards. Personally, I’d love to receive a Christmas card with a giant label that warned me that the people in it had been digitally altered.

And I found the pictures below on a site about terrible Photoshopping. They’re basically glamour shots that were taken of little girls then edited until they look “flawless” (in my opinion, kind of like creepy dolls). I thought they were entertaining.