It’s time to have my say on the Photoshop Debate! Like everyone else in the world, I seem to have a strong opinion on this subject. I’m sick of reading blog after blog about how Photoshop is distorting reality and making everyone into robots and dolls. In case that hasn’t hit the nail on the head, I am 100% PRO PHOTOSHOP, and have valid reasons to back up my decision.
Firstly, I want to express my utter disappointment towards Frank Karycinski, who quoted “Photoshop – that which produces a great photograph from an average photographer” (www.photoquotes.com/PopularQuotes). Surely if you are talented enough to create a brilliant end product from an average photograph that is worth just as much credit as taking a decent photo first time (which would be edited anyway in some form I’m sure!). I believe using Photoshop is an art itself, taking a dull image and cleverly manipulating it into something it would never have been. Great shots are not always evident straight away, and I think some people forget that it isn’t exactly easy to use Photoshop, it takes time and effort to study each tool in order to use it to its full capability. Some people argue that Photoshop has allowed photographers to become lazy, however I believe it has done the opposite, providing so many more tools to create the best image possible (see Fig 1).
If an image connects with someone on a personal level, it has done its job, no matter what editing took place. Imagine a family portrait with absolutely no editing, would it create the same story or emotion? Would people pay the same steep prices for print outs if they didn’t look airbrushed and flawless? Basically what I’m trying to say, is that even without Photoshop, the contrast, focus, exposure, cropping and altering of colour balance can be used elsewhere to change an image, so whether it’s been edited on Photoshop or not, is there ever such a thing as a true to life image? Just because it has not been put through Photoshop specifically, does not mean it is not manipulated.
The Photoshop Debate seems to hit boiling point when it comes to fashion advertising. For example, Debenhams introduced an airbrushing ban on their swimwear advertising campaign and laid bare all the tricks they would have used if this ban wasn’t in play (see Fig 2 & 3). The point was to shock viewers, giving them a clearer understanding about how much is actually done to an image in order to get to the final shot. However, I am led to believe this is a slightly half-hearted attempt. Debenhams past efforts concerning different social issues have made me question whether it’s purely a publicity stunt. Back in 2010 they launched size 16 mannequins in their Oxford Street shop window (very convenient), then later added to this by introducing their first ever, disabled model. These ads lasted a small number of weeks, then were replaced back with the airbrushed images we all know too well. Are they just cashing in on society’s problems, and not really solving them? The point I am getting at is, that no matter what anyone says, beauty sells. No matter how you get there, a product is more likely to catch your eye if it is making the model look gorgeous, and you can only hope it will do the same for you!
The use of Photoshop in magazines is also a hot topic, but I struggle to understand why exactly. Everyone knows that celebrities have their bodies edited 90% of the time, whether it improves them or not. At the end of the day it’s a matter of opinion as to what the ‘perfect figure’ is. Some celebs are given more curves, some are given less, it’s purely the preferred figure to the person making the image alterations. New research from the School of Medicine recently claimed that ‘girls who read gossip magazines are much more likely to experience an eating disorder’ (www.cardiff.ac.uk). Now I could be completely bonkers, but I’m pretty sure everyone is aware of the fact magazines can be complete nonsense at times, but girls in particular still choose to buy them and convince themselves that each and every celebrity looks exactly how they are photographed.
One more point in which I feel necessary to highlight, is that even before Photoshop and digital retouching existed, the removal of blemishes etc, would have been done with lighting and make up anyway, therefore the software simply saves time and money. The models chosen have always been unrepresentative of the average man or woman, which makes me question whether it is actually more reassuring to know that they have been edited, rather than feast our eyes over a body that is naturally thin and beautiful (the image that female models are required to have, but can not be attained by everyone).
I do agree it can be taken too far when it comes to altering a products outcome through Photoshop (foundation or mascara for example), but maybe everyone should overlook the fact that Photoshop is being used, (and will continue to be used) and focus more on making themselves or their children aware of this in order for them to make up their own minds on the issue. I personally think Photoshop is a lifesaver, nothing bad can come out of making an average image into a exceptional image in my eyes, and as long as the final product gains recognition and emotion of some kind, I believe it has served its purpose.
