'How far is too far?'
In an age where you can't always believe what you see, how far is it acceptable to go with post production?
Nowadays pretty much every photo we come across has been enhanced in some way. We see images of celebrities every day and none of them are what they actually look like. We see models walking down catwalks and then the photos are in magazines being completely retouched and changed.
Retouching images dates back to the 1860s when you had to physically paint the image to edit it. There is a very famous photograph where it shows Abraham Lincoln apparently posing for a photograph, it turned out that it wasn't actually him and that the only part that was him was his face and the rest of the photo was edited.
(Abraham Lincoln's edited image)
This image of Joan Crawford is also an example of retouching. This image on the left was taken by George Hurrel in 1931, the image on the right is the retouched version. The retouched version looks so flawless and smooth that it almost looks like a painting rather than a photograph.
Even if you look at an image and you think it hasn't been edited, there is a very large chance that it has. Every image is retouched no matter how small, the best retouching will fool you into thinking that nothing has been done at all.
This image is a modern example of retouching. The one on the left is the original and the one on the right is the edited version, you can tell a lot that this image has been altered. Her skin, hair and even her body have all been photoshopped, she looks dull and grey in the first one and flawless, skinnier and highlighter in the second one.
But is this too much? Do we look at these images and think they look too much or do we like them?
I personally like the look of photoshopped images, I like how flawless they look. I understand that people may not like them as they could make people feel insecure or they might not meet the standards of beauty set by celebrities but as a makeup artist, I love perfection and so I prefer edited images. I do think that some photos can be too over edited though.
This is an image of Madonna posing for Dolce and Gabbana, you can obviously tell that the left image is the original. By looking at that photo, I would agree to edit it but when I look at the image on the right, my first thought is that it's way over the top that her face almost looks like a cartoon character, her skin is too flawless that it doesn't look real and the whites in the photo are too bright.
This is another modern example of a retouched image. You can very much see the difference between her skin in the two photos.
So, what's worse? The fact that this amount of retouching goes on? Or the fact that companies feel that they need to go to these lengths in this day and age?
I feel that there is very high pressure in this day and age with how people look, if a celebrity went out in public with a tiny bit of cellulite or stretch marks, you would see it all over newspapers the next day so for companies, especially cosmetic brands, they have to strive to make the adverts look as perfect as possible as this generation has become so judgemental towards the idea of beauty. I think in this day that this amount of photoshop is deemed as normal. People actually believe that Beyonce looks as flawless as she does in the second photo that when they see the first one, they're completely shocked and it doesn't even look like her.
How much of this is down to what the people in the photographs want?
Usually on any photoshoot, the photographer is essentially one of the most important people. It is up to them how they photo ends up looking so this photoshopping craze could be because of how they want the image to look like. If a magazine such as Vogue contacted a photographer, they would expect the image to look nice and I think if they got sent the first image, they wouldn't use it in their magazine, they would expect flawless skin in able to publish it.
How much of this is down to what we expect?
The reason Vogue would only publish Beyonce with flawless skin is because of our reaction. Magazines publish purely for their customers, they post what we want to see. If we seen Beyonce with non flawless skin in a magazine, we might be tempted not to buy it again so companies won't do it. As I said previously, it's down to how judgemental we've become that we would stop buying a product simply because the image doesn't live up to our standards of beauty.
There have been times were certain adverts have been banned because the images have been edited far too much.
These are two examples of this. Both images have been retouched that much, that the advert had to be banned. You can see more in the Dior advert that the model's skin looks too unreal, it is so smooth with no blemishes or flaws that she doesn't even look like a real person. The second image shows Twiggy who is a 66 year old woman, the image doesn't look like a woman of this age as her skin looks so flawless, she actually looks like a woman in her thirties.
There have been adverts such as the one above that is using fake advertising. The image above is meant to show what the mascara they are advertising can do, but it is false as the model is wearing fake eyelashes in all the three shots so you cannot tell truly what the product will really be like.
We watched a video in our lecture which I thought was very interesting, it was called 'Speed Retouch: 90 min in 5' and shows a tutorial of a photo being photoshopped but it's sped up so it's only 5 minutes long. It goes into great detail and they make sure they capture everything including making sure the hairlines are straight and her lips have light in them.

The before version

The after version