Photo Manipulation

When looking at the different manipulated images today and how they effect women, I think that women get the wrong idea when they see how women are portrayed. What women see on a daily basis walking down the street is what real woman look like, but when they start to look at the billboards and the magazines they start to see an unrealistic image of how the media depicts women. When they see this everyday it can easily cause self image problems. They see the “perfect” women in magazines and advertisements, but in reality those women look nothing like their pictures. Their picture has been so manipulated and modified it’s hard to tell what’s hers and what was created.

What I now know about computer retouching and how much is used in every picture I see makes me wonder what’s real these days? How can I tell if someone actually looks that way or if they were “made” to look that way? I think that with celebrities and models a little touching up isn’t bad, like getting rid of acne or wrinkles, but when you getting so into it that your taking out body parts and changing eye color, you’re crossing the line. For example, in the December 1990 edition of Glamour Magazine, Madonna was put on the cover, but she wasn’t happy with the outcome. They had changed so much about her photo that she didn’t even want it on the cover. The one thing that put Madonna over the edge was the fact that they removed the gap that she loved in between her teeth. They took away what she thought was one of her trademarks. I think there’s times when photo manipulation is necessary, but there is always times when it really isn’t needed. In today’s day and age I think that changing and modifying pictures had gone too far. The media portrays women and men in a certain way that you won’t see everyday. They change reality to their own point of view which causes our point of view to change to theirs.

When looking at the differences between the Newsweek Magazine and the TIME Magazine with the cover of OJ Simpson’s mug shot, you are able to see a definite manipulation of the photo. What TIME Magazine's editor James Gaines had to say about this was " The harshness of the mug shot – the merciless bright light, the stubble on Simpson’s face, the cold specificity of the picture- had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon or tragedy. The expression on his face was not merely blank now; it was bottomless. This cover, with the simple, nonjudgmental headline “An American Tragedy”, seemed the obvious, right choice.”

I don’t personally think that TIME magazine was trying to be racist or insensitive. I think they were trying to create a darker illusion to make the picture flow with the title and story of OJ. I don’t think the color of his skin had anything to do with how the photo was changed. I don’t think they needed to do it, but since they did I don’t think that it was that big of a deal. It’s not like they changed his look physically, like facial features, they just dimmed down the light on the photo. When looking at the ethics of photo manipulation, changing the photo to deceive the public is wrong, but I don’t think this photo of OJ deceived people. I think this change was along the lines of ethical and yes some people found it offensive, but not deceiving.

When people interpret images they look at the different things that make the photo what it is. The role that a person’s race, religion, ethnicity and socioeconomic background plays is that it allows people to pick out certain things in the photo that may change their views on it. For example, with the TIME cover of O.J., people that were African American found that TIME Magazine’s cover was racist because it made O.J. look more “sinister and guilty”. It allows your point of view of things to change very easily.

--------------------------------------------------

Rose, Trevor. "YOU and YOUR RIGHTS." The Washington Post Company 19 Dec 2002: 10, 11.

"Pictures That Lie." news.com. 11 Sep 2006. CNET Networks, Inc.. 16 Jan 2008 http://i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/oj_480x318.jpg.

Puley, Aaron. "Blogs." E-mail to 'Michelle'.13 Jan 2008.