Photoshop yay or nay?

[PlayboyMegan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... 46190.html

Do you think heavily photoshopped photos are dangerous to today's youth? Why/why not?

 

[bawksy]

It's a little obnoxious, but I don't think it's dangerous.

I mean, I looked up to He-man when I was younger, but I never had self esteem issues because I wasn't as big as him and probably would never be.




If little girls somehow think a photoshopped Jennifer Lawrence is normal, all they have to do is go to school or go to the mall and see how the majority of people really look. It's not a big deal.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

It's a little obnoxious, but I don't think it's dangerous.

I mean, I looked up to He-man when I was younger, but I never had self esteem issues because I wasn't as big as him and probably would never be.

If little girls somehow think a photoshopped Jennifer Lawrence is normal, all they have to do is go to school or go to the mall and see how the majority of people really look. It's not a big deal.

I fully agree. They have even photoshopped girls that were too skinny to look more healthy. If anything, I think they are promoting a healthier living.
Ad I don't think those photoshopped bodies are "unrealistic" as some would put it. If you work out had enough and eat properly, you CAN have those perfect bodies you see in mags.

 

[bawksy]

If you work out had enough and eat properly, you CAN have those perfect bodies you see in mags.

inb4 the fat acceptance movement eats you alive

 

[schlmoe]

The Jennifer Lawrence cover change-up wasn't too far off of reality. At least it wasn't as bad as this one:


Here's an so-called "worst list" of Pre-Photoshop photo retouches: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... ry/258369/

People have been faking photos since long before digital tools came along.

 

[IvyR]

I think South Park hit the nail on the head with that one...
Here's an article on that (there's also a clip of one of the important scenes):

http://petapixel.com/2013/12/19/south-park-takes-photoshop-season-finale-episode/

Spoiler alert!!
***************************************************
Basically the episode is about Lisa Berger the "ugliest girl in school" becoming popular and the "hottest girl in school" by posting a photoshopped photo of herself on facebook. The other girls all do the same, and poor Wendy fights the entire episode about how horrible it is for the young girls' self image. Eventually the episode closes with Wendy submitting a photoshopped photo of herself, succumbing to the pure pressure of all the boys saying Wendy is "just jealous" of how much more attractive Lisa Berger is.
***************************************************

It's a really sad episode, but it's a perfect example of how unrealistic the expectations of a woman is, and how men encourage it and cannot tell the difference...

If you work out had enough and eat properly, you CAN have those perfect bodies you see in mags.

In the clip above, they even address working out (a young girl is told to get on the treadmill, only to be told to pose and have pictures taken of her instead of actually using the equipment) but show how much easier it is to just photoshop...

Another great example is someone suggesting they like "the natural no-make up look, like Kim Kardashian."


I think they're a danger to the youth, both girls & boys. The expectations are so unrealistic but it's come so far now that even with these ads showing before and after, people still don't see the shame in photoshopping. Even I'm a victim of photoshop, I'm sure most girls are. Sometimes I'm even embarrassed at how my photos look naturally (shadows, puffyness/life's toll under eyes, freckles in the wrong places) and that's really unfortunate... But the reality is, with photoshop available, why would any girl want to put her real self out there for people to see? So sad...

 

[B_E_C_C_A]

I think South Park hit the nail on the head with that one...
Here's an article on that (there's also a clip of one of the important scenes):

http://petapixel.com/2013/12/19/south-park-takes-photoshop-season-finale-episode/

Spoiler alert!!
***************************************************
Basically the episode is about Lisa Berger the "ugliest girl in school" becoming popular and the "hottest girl in school" by posting a photoshopped photo of herself on facebook. The other girls all do the same, and poor Wendy fights the entire episode about how horrible it is for the young girls' self image. Eventually the episode closes with Wendy submitting a photoshopped photo of herself, succumbing to the pure pressure of all the boys saying Wendy is "just jealous" of how much more attractive Lisa Berger is.
***************************************************

It's a really sad episode, but it's a perfect example of how unrealistic the expectations of a woman is, and how men encourage it and cannot tell the difference...

If you work out had enough and eat properly, you CAN have those perfect bodies you see in mags.

In the clip above, they even address working out (a young girl is told to get on the treadmill, only to be told to pose and have pictures taken of her instead of actually using the equipment) but show how much easier it is to just photoshop...

Another great example is someone suggesting they like "the natural no-make up look, like Kim Kardashian."


I think they're a danger to the youth, both girls & boys. The expectations are so unrealistic but it's come so far now that even with these ads showing before and after, people still don't see the shame in photoshopping. Even I'm a victim of photoshop, I'm sure most girls are. Sometimes I'm even embarrassed at how my photos look naturally (shadows, puffyness/life's toll under eyes, freckles in the wrong places) and that's really unfortunate... But the reality is, with photoshop available, why would any girl want to put her real self out there for people to see? So sad...

I just watched that episode last night! Even though it was really sad, I loved it nonetheless.
Ok but onto the topic at hand- I couldn't agree more! What photoshop can do is nothing short of miraculous, but with that power comes some serious consequences it may have on society's youth. I'm by no means a super model. I would never, ever consider myself to be one either. But when I was 11 and 12, holy hell I couldn't understand for the life of me as to why I couldn't be as flawless as the teens I saw in seventeen mag or marie claire. It really solidified the completely emotional and erratic thoughts I had as a teen with low self esteem, thoughts like "I'm so ugly. I'm horrifying. I'm disgusting and fat. I have acne and pretty girls don't have acne. I have cellulite and pretty girls don't have it. I'll never be liked because I'm not pretty and skinny." And now, 14 years later, I can see how detrimental that was on my life. Never happy, always self conscious. People would say, "Oh those models are air brushed before they print these magazines" but alas, it didn't sway my mind. Until I saw it first hand on myself and got to meet people I considered "flawless", because it turns out they are just as average looking as me.

But now that I have modeled for some time, I expect my photographer to touch up my photos. If they don't, I consider them amateur and try to do it myself. Even the right makeup works some crazy magic.
Speaking of makeup magic, after I watch that episode last night I found a post my friend linked on their facebook about porn stars without makeup. I read it and flipped through the pictures and was not as shocked as the author made it out to be.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2013/03/13/...o-makeup-pornstars-without-makeup-pictures/#1

Here was my response to the article:

Whoever wrote this can go choke on a fat one. There is nothing wrong with any of these ladies. And if anyone thinks they're "just hideous" without their makeup on, I want them to go take a hard look in the mirror. Because I'm soooo sure that the author of this must be Prince Charming and Ryan Gosling combined. These ladies look like your normal everyday woman. And that's because they are average, normal, everyday women. And especially fuck that guy hard in the ace for saying that these performers' fans will "never look at [them] the same way again" and that he was upset that some of his favorite stars "look like grandmothers without makeup". I wish the author would get pile drove for hours on end, masturbate furiously until chaffed, have to shove countless object up orifices and have to perform over the top, song and dance style "orgasming" on command for just a week. Then we'll see who's lookin' like a grandma without any makeup on.

It's a sad shame that there really are turd burgers out there that believe that the women they see "looking natural/sans makeup" really look like that. It makes me so mad, I wanna slap their mommas.

 

[Red7227]

Speaking of makeup magic, after I watch that episode last night I found a post my friend linked on their facebook about porn stars without makeup. I read it and flipped through the pictures and was not as shocked as the author made it out to be.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2013/03/13/...o-makeup-pornstars-without-makeup-pictures/#1

The difference is mostly just lack of eye liner and some spots. I know when I'm on a webcam I have this red face with spots everywhere, which doesn't appear in natural light. In about half the photos the lighting is being manipulated as well. I have an Israeli friend who has never worn makeup in her entire life. She has beautiful skin, with these giant dark eyes. Makeup would make her look different but not significantly better.

Something that should be mentioned is how bad a lot of women are at applying makeup. Moderation in all things, including makeup should be a goal. I remember complemented one of my friend on her makeup and she got offended. She had been in such a rush to work that day she had only had time to apply some samples from the displays in a local store. She was wearing half as much as usual and its seems she got some help so it matched her natural colour so much better than her own efforts.

 

[xSALTx]

Speaking of makeup magic, after I watch that episode last night I found a post my friend linked on their facebook about porn stars without makeup. I read it and flipped through the pictures and was not as shocked as the author made it out to be.
http://www.everyjoe.com/2013/03/13/...o-makeup-pornstars-without-makeup-pictures/#1

The difference is mostly just lack of eye liner and some spots. I know when I'm on a webcam I have this red face with spots everywhere, which doesn't appear in natural light. In about half the photos the lighting is being manipulated as well. I have an Israeli friend who has never worn makeup in her entire life. She has beautiful skin, with these giant dark eyes. Makeup would make her look different but not significantly better.

Something that should be mentioned is how bad a lot of women are at applying makeup. Moderation in all things, including makeup should be a goal. I remember complemented one of my friend on her makeup and she got offended. She had been in such a rush to work that day she had only had time to apply some samples from the displays in a local store. She was wearing half as much as usual and its seems she got some help so it matched her natural colour so much better than her own efforts.

I thought half of them were adorable without makeup. It seemed like they were all wearing the same overdone eye in the after shots, which was sad. Natural beauty is very much underrated these days....

 

[Aella]

Before I was a camgirl, I was a professional boudoir photographer and retoucher. I both took photos and did hundreds of hours of photoshop work on them, sometimes pore-by-pore redrawing. That shit is tedious.

Anyhow, if you put on makeup, you're trying to make yourself look more beautiful than you are. If you position yourself just right in the light, you are picking out a moment of time where you look gorgeous. Even with no photoshop retouching, the correct camera, lighting, pose, and makeup can make you look a thousand times more beautiful than you "really are." And for some reason, we consider that to be okay, but photoshop isn't. Photoshop is just one step further. Maybe in the future we'll develop supermakeup that gives you a perfect complexion, and contacts that make your eyes clear and bright. Would you reject using that?

Extreme photoshopping is used to pursue an ideal beauty. Usually the most extreme photoshop is used in cases of art - fashion magazines, or people meant to symbolize an ideal, not someone you recognize. If it's a well known character or celebrity, photoshop is used more similarly to makeup or an alternate world where they worked out and lost weight.

Everybody wants to look beautiful, and photoshop reflects what we could be, not what we are.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I think they can be, sure. I doubt that someone who is already comfortable with who they are, happy with their body, confident, etc. is likely to look at a photo-shopped image and suddenly feel compelled to live up to an impossible ideal. But for folk who already suffer from body image issues, or lack of confidence, or low self esteem, I can see photo-shopped images making matters worse for them. Which isn't necessarily the magazine's problem, but at the same time, it's a.... wait for it, wait for it... issue... :? ... that they choose to knowingly exacerbate for seemingly little or no gain. And I'm not really sure why. Are people truly less likely to buy a magazine if the woman on the front of it doesn't look freakishly unblemished, scarily thin and impossibly perfect?

It just creates this weird culture of young, impressionable people being conditioned to believe that if they don't have a body that can only be obtained by spending four days a week in the gym and eating only what sparse amounts of food their nutritionist allows them to, they can't be successful or be seen to be conventionally attractive - and even then that's not enough unless they're somehow photo-shopped in real life.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I don't think anyone or anything can hurt your self esteem. It's called SELF esteem. It's within yourSELF. Only you control it. I think blaming a magazine for your low self esteem is a cop out to your real issues within yourself.

 

[IvyR]

I don't think anyone or anything can hurt your self esteem. It's called SELF esteem. It's within yourSELF. Only you control it. I think blaming a magazine for your low self esteem is a cop out to your real issues within yourself.

I'm not speaking on every youth's behalf here, but yes I agree with the "self" statement, but young, impressionable girls don't have that sense of self yet. How can you imply these insecurities aren't justified? Even an older woman who grew up being bullied for her looks, and comparing herself to these images could have low self esteem. These young girls (and even women) see "perfection" in these magazines and other forms of media and obsess with it. They get pressured into feeling they aren't "good enough."

I agree that they should work out and eat healthy to have those bodies they want to achieve. But I don't agree with saying to just "look around a mall and see normal people" as stated earlier because these women who have grown up conditioned to think that "normal" isn't "good enough" have a hard time accepting "normal" (or healthy) because it isn't the perfection they're seeking.

This is why I love things like the Dove campaign and stores using curvier (or what-have you) mannequins, because that promotes seeing those bodies in a positive light. In that light of "stylist & perfection."

When it boils down to it, young girls are impressionable and, generally, an opinion someone has is a pretty big deal for developing girls. As much as we try to support them and teach our youth otherwise, it's still something people (in general) struggle with.

I'm not saying this is the correct mentality to have (obviously)
I would much prefer every girl not giving a rat's ass what boys and other girls think and young kids could distinguish a photoshopped body and a natural body. But I think overall, the world is unveiling the photoshop epidemic to kids and hopefully it will be easier for these kids to accept themselves and create that sense of self. :twocents-02cents:

I'd also like to add that some of those bodies are sometimes very unrealistic. Take the link at the top of the thread, for example. They literally changed her bone structure. Her collar bones are completely different and look like those of a slimmer woman.

 

[PlayboyMegan]

So you love dove because they have thick girls. Isn't that an unrealistic body type to those who are naturally skinny and uncurvy??? No one is ever going to look like every girl in the magazines. For example, should Kate Upton not model? Most of us will never have those size of boobs. It's unrealistic for many of us.
So if a girl lets that get her down, those are issues with HER, NOT the magazine.

 

[SatanJonez]

So you love dove because they have thick girls. Isn't that an unrealistic body type to those who are naturally skinny and uncurvy??? No one is ever going to look like every girl in the magazines. For example, should Kate Upton not model? Most of us will never have those size of boobs. It's unrealistic for many of us.
So if a girl lets that get her down, those are issues with HER, NOT the magazine.

It's more common in most of America (at least that studies have proven) to have a body that was featured in the newer Dove campaigns than say watching a classic runway show or checking out any fashion magazine on the rack in a super market. There is likely never going to be a happy medium when it comes to advertising, but I agree it's nice that Dove took a step forward to at least be inclusive.

 

[B_E_C_C_A]

So you love dove because they have thick girls. Isn't that an unrealistic body type to those who are naturally skinny and uncurvy??? No one is ever going to look like every girl in the magazines. For example, should Kate Upton not model? Most of us will never have those size of boobs. It's unrealistic for many of us.
So if a girl lets that get her down, those are issues with HER, NOT the magazine.

You're right, the issues of insecurity lie within the individual and not the magazine itself. But when you're a pre-teen, it can be easy to harbor these kinds of insecurities. Young teenagers are bombarded every day with images of what it is to be cool and uncool and what adults do. At this point in life, many teens are trying to develop a sense of self; who they are in relation to everybody else and who they think they want to be. So it takes a lot of growing up to break this self depleting outlook on life once the ball's been rollin'. Most adults know that no one looks like anyone from magazines. But when you're 11, it could feel pretty real.

 

[Red7227]

So you love dove because they have thick girls. Isn't that an unrealistic body type to those who are naturally skinny and uncurvy??? No one is ever going to look like every girl in the magazines. For example, should Kate Upton not model? Most of us will never have those size of boobs. It's unrealistic for many of us.
So if a girl lets that get her down, those are issues with HER, NOT the magazine.

You're right, the issues of insecurity lie within the individual and not the magazine itself. But when you're a pre-teen, it can be easy to harbor these kinds of insecurities. Young teenagers are bombarded every day with images of what it is to be cool and uncool and what adults do. At this point in life, many teens are trying to develop a sense of self; who they are in relation to everybody else and who they think they want to be. So it takes a lot of growing up to break this self depleting outlook on life once the ball's been rollin'. Most adults know that no one looks like anyone from magazines. But when you're 11, it could feel pretty real.

It really is up to parents to teach their kids how completely irrelevant magazines and the media are to reality. If kids get taught by their school and their parents about critical thinking, and are coached to nurture their self esteem, whatever gets printed in magazines won't matter.

 

[Violet October]

When I was in middle school, I hated everything about my body and my appearance. Nothing I did was good enough, and my parents didn't help by giving me teen magazines with thin, perfect, photoshoppped models and articles on how to look perfect, how to get that perfect summer bikini body, how to get perfect clear skin, etc.

It took me a LONG damn time to get over that.

Young women are DEFINITELY impressionable and I do think it's pretty harmful.

(And, btw.. I LOVED that South Park episode.) And I most definitely love the Dove campaign. Frankie was right about american women being more likely to have THAT kind of body rather, and it's nice to see that used.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I don't think anyone or anything can hurt your self esteem. It's called SELF esteem. It's within yourSELF. Only you control it. I think blaming a magazine for your low self esteem is a cop out to your real issues within yourself.

I don't think self esteem exists in a vacuum though. People don't suddenly wake up one day questioning their worth for no apparent reason. People, especially young and impressionable people, form beliefs about themselves based on their experiences, failing to meet the expectations of others, being bullied, etc. If a parent were to systematically abuse their child from a young age, telling them they're worthless, that nobody loves them, that they're ugly, that they're not as good as the other children; that child would grow up with severe self esteem issues, no? I think it would be pretty harsh to blame the child for those issues and not the parent, ya know? That's obviously an extreme example and I'm not saying that magazine publishers are guilty of the systematic abuse of children, but at the same time, I don't think the magazine publishers are completely blameless either :twocents-02cents:

 

[PlayboyMegan]

So are you guys saying that photoshop should be done away with all together? Or just that it can be harmful to some? Because those are two very different things.

 

[Red7227]

That's obviously an extreme example and I'm not saying that magazine publishers are guilty of the systematic abuse of children, but at the same time, I don't think the magazine publishers are completely blameless either :twocents-02cents:

They are guilty of selling magazines by any means necessary. Do you remember watching the news 40 years ago? They just reported what happened, the presenters did not tell you their names at every opportunity and integrity was something that got mentioned occasionally. The media industry gave out awards for the quality of reporting.

Now all that matters is the number of people watching a news program so that the cost of the advertising can be calculated.

Now magazine publishers do anything necessary to sell their magazines. If girls aren't insecure about their makeup, clothes, body shape, friends and relationships then they would not have a reason to buy magazines. Guys are simpler, all you need to do is show them boobs, a car, or a football team and they are happy.

And then there is Facebook...

 

[DudeExtreme]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/14/jennifer-lawrence-photoshop_n_4446190.html

Do you think heavily photoshopped photos are dangerous to today's youth? Why/why not?

Photoshopping is here to stay and it is what sells and have always been that way. It looks like our society has been doing this since the 1860s starting with modifying Abraham Lincoln's head and putting it on John Calhoun’s body.

I think educating kids to recognize it can help debunk what they see in photos.

I guess this debate will continue in the centuries to come. I'm finding more and more that things are never what they seem.

 

[Red7227]

And before photoshop there was Barbie

 

[Sevrin]

We start forming our self-image very early in our lives, at a time when we are not necessarily equipped to evaluate all the information we receive about ourselves. A small child who is constantly told by the adults in their environment that they are either a marvel of nature or a piece of shit, and is treated accordingly, won't have a lot of reference points by which to judge the validity of those emotional inputs. As we grow up, it's not a simple matter to leave all those deep-seated feelings behind.

Likewise, the danger of these idealized images is not to adults. It really is that children and young adolescents, who are very malleable, will take them as something they can and should try to live up to.

MFC is for adults, though. Knock yourselves out with the Photoshop, because the next model sure will. If people have any doubts as to what you really look like, they can always join your chat room with the video feed turned on.

 

[mynameisbob84]

So are you guys saying that photoshop should be done away with all together? Or just that it can be harmful to some? Because those are two very different things.

There's no need to get rid of something that can be useful. I just think magazine publishers should be more responsible about when, where and how they use it. There's a world of difference, for example, between a pornographic photo shoot appearing in an adult magazine being photo-shopped so that the subject conforms to what that magazine's demographic enjoy jerking off to; and somebody like Jennifer Lawrence, who impressionable teenage girls look up to and who is very outspoken about body image, being photo-shopped to look unrealistically skinny and blemish-free on the cover of a magazine that targets young, impressionable girls as its readership. That just sends an irresponsible message :twocents-02cents:

 

[mynameisbob84]

That's obviously an extreme example and I'm not saying that magazine publishers are guilty of the systematic abuse of children, but at the same time, I don't think the magazine publishers are completely blameless either :twocents-02cents:

They are guilty of selling magazines by any means necessary. Do you remember watching the news 40 years ago? They just reported what happened, the presenters did not tell you their names at every opportunity and integrity was something that got mentioned occasionally. The media industry gave out awards for the quality of reporting.

Now all that matters is the number of people watching a news program so that the cost of the advertising can be calculated.

Now magazine publishers do anything necessary to sell their magazines. If girls aren't insecure about their makeup, clothes, body shape, friends and relationships then they would not have a reason to buy magazines. Guys are simpler, all you need to do is show them boobs, a car, or a football team and they are happy.

And then there is Facebook...

I guess everything comes back to money in the end.

 

[IvyR]

So are you guys saying that photoshop should be done away with all together? Or just that it can be harmful to some? Because those are two very different things.

I don't think anyone here has implied photoshop shouldn't be around. The question was "is it harmful?" and the answer is yes. To a young psyche, yes. Like Spoons said, it's hard for those children to believe it's not real. And the fact is, it's not. Like I said in my last comment, they changed her bone structure.


Photoshop isn't entirely the problem. The problem is there isn't more discussion about this sort of thing in schools, or around the home. I was never taught to not compare myself to those images. Yes, that's a parental fault, but school didn't teach me that either. They never really addressed it. I know at my old high school now, there are some clubs that bring awareness to body image but there's a long way to go.

I feel these ideals need to be addressed because yes, teens can eat healthy and work out, but they will never achieve a body so pieced together perfectly like that, because it is exactly that. The best pieces glued together. (I keep thinking about her collar bone and how her body structure could not achieve that.) But I don't think it's the "magazine's problem." It's society's.

What we need is education for children and awareness from adults that a child's mind is impressionable to the point of illness.

 

[mutantdonut]

I don't think anyone or anything can hurt your self esteem. It's called SELF esteem. It's within yourSELF. Only you control it. I think blaming a magazine for your low self esteem is a cop out to your real issues within yourself.

While it is true that self-esteem problems has a level of self-infliction, I would highly contest that controlling one's self esteem is not as simple as the statement you've made, hence far more easier said than done. Having dealt with younger pre-teen or early teen kids as one of my jobs, the mentality of a number of these youngsters have deep rooted inner demons that are difficult for them to control. I've also come across many younger adults (age 18-24) who have the very same inner demons. It's not as simple as telling each, "just don't think about it" and suddenly the demon switch turns off. Although it's not impossible to move beyond that mentality as many have come to terms with their imperfect bodies, it can be an incredibly challenging road for many who have deep rooted issues.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[PunkInDrublic]

https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16067
Older thread with more opinions.

 

[Red7227]

Aerie Real campaign says no photoshop and no supermodels

http://www.hngn.com/articles/22453/2014 ... .htm#page4