Editing Photograph manipulation (section)

== Retouching human subjects ==
A common form of photographic manipulation, particularly in advertising, fashion, boudoir, portrait, and glamour photography, involves edits intended to enhance the appearance of the subject. Common transformations include smoothing skin texture, erasing scars, pimples, and other skin blemishes, slimming the subject's body, and erasing wrinkles and folds. Commentators have raised concerns that such practices may lead to unrealistic expectations and negative body image among the audience.

=== Use in fashion ===
The photo manipulation industry has often been accused of promoting or inciting a distorted and unrealistic image of {{nowrap|self{{hsp}}{{mdash}}}}{{hsp}}most specifically in younger people.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Professional Photo Editing Services For E-commerce photos |url=https://www.fixanyphoto.com/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=www.fixanyphoto.com |language=en-US}}</ref> The world of [[glamour photography]] is one specific industry that has been heavily involved with the use of photo manipulation (what many consider to be a concerning element as many people look up to celebrities in search of embodying the 'ideal figure').<ref>{{Cite web |title=Professional Photo Editing Services For E-commerce photos |url=https://www.fixanyphoto.com/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=www.fixanyphoto.com |language=en-US}}</ref> Manipulation of a photo to alter a model's appearance can be used to change features such as skin complexion, hair color, body shape, and other features. Many of the alterations to skin involve removing blemishes through the use of features included within popular image editing programs which are designed for just such purposes. Photo editors may also alter the color of hair to remove roots or add shine. Additionally, the model's teeth and eyes may be made to look whiter than they are in reality. [[Cosmetics|Makeup]] and [[body piercing|piercings]] can even be edited into pictures to look as though the model was wearing them when the photo was taken. Through photo editing, the appearance of a model may be drastically changed to mask imperfections.<ref>Metzmacher, Dirk. "Smashing Magazine." Smashing Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. April 16, 2014.</ref>

In an article entitled "Confessions of a Retoucher: how the modeling industry is harming women", a professional retoucher who has worked for mega-fashion brands shares the industry's secrets.<ref name="Cage">{{Cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/confessions-of-a-retoucher-how-the-modelling-industry-is-harming-women-20171006-gyvqf2.html |title=Confessions of a retoucher: how the modeling industry is harming women |last=Cage |first=Carolyn |date=2017-10-06 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |language=en |access-date=2018-10-30}}</ref> Along with fixing imperfections like skin wrinkles and smoothing features, the size of the model is manipulated by either adding or subtracting visible weight. Reverse retouching is just as common as making models skinnier, "distorting the bodies of very thin models to make them appear more robust in a process called reverse retouching. It is almost worse than making someone slimmer because the image claims you can be at an unhealthy weight but still look healthy. In reality, you can't, you have to Photoshop it".<ref name="Cage" /> Reverse retouching includes eliminating shadows from protruding bones, adding flesh over body parts, color correcting, and removing hair generated for warmth from extreme weight loss. Professionals are saying that if an image is not labeled "not retouched", then the public can assume that photograph has been modified.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/how-retouched-photos-impact-our-mental-health-2018-3 |first1=Caitlin |last1=Flynn |agency=SheKnows |date=Mar 30, 2018 |title=Here's how retouched photos impact our mental health |work=Business Insider |access-date=2018-10-30}}</ref> As the fashion industry continues to use photos that have been manipulated to idealize body types, there is a need for education about how unreal and unhealthy these images are and the negative implications they are promoting.

A digital manipulation expert, who edited and altered a lot of images for the fashion industry and wants to remain private, says it is normal to digitally manipulate a photograph of a model to make them appear thinner, regardless of actual weight. Generally, photographs are edited to remove the appearance of up to {{Convert|10|kilogram}}. However, in the past 20 years,{{When|date=February 2021}} the practice has changed, as more celebrities are on social media and the public is now more aware of their actual appearances; it is likely that significant alterations would be noticed.{{Citation needed|date=February 2021}} The retoucher notes that the industry's goal is to make significant income in advertising and that the unrealistic ideals cycle will continue as they have to maintain this.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/photoshop-shock-insider-reveals-fashion-industry-image-editing-practices-20140924-10l97y.html |title=Photoshop shock: Insider reveals fashion industry image editing practices |last=Clun |first=Rachel |date=2014-09-24 |website=The Sydney Morning Herald |language=en |access-date=2020-04-04}}</ref>

Starting in 2012, [[Seventeen (American magazine)|''Seventeen'' magazine]] said they intended to no longer manipulate photos of their models. The decision was made after a 14-year-old girl, Julia Bluhm, petitioned that the magazine use a minimum of one unaltered photo in each of their spread per issue. The petition received over 84,000 signatures.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Amanda Oliver |title=4 Companies That Refuse to Photoshop—And Why That Matters For All Genders |url=https://groundswell.org/4-companies-that-refuse-to-photoshop-and-why-that-matters-for-all-genders/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150305001614/https://groundswell.org/4-companies-that-refuse-to-photoshop-and-why-that-matters-for-all-genders/ |archive-date=2015-03-05 |access-date=2020-04-04 |website=Groundswell |language=en}}</ref>

=== On social media ===
Social media apps such as [[Snapchat]], [[Instagram]], and [[TikTok]] enable users to manipulate photos using the back or front camera, applying pre-made filters to enhance the quality of the picture, distort themselves, or add creative elements such as text, coloring or stickers. Filters provided on social media platforms are made by social media companies or are [[user-generated content]]. Photo editing techniques include the addition of polls, GIFs, music, countdowns, donations, and links.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Mueller |first1=Marie Elisabeth |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003275251/social-media-storytelling-marie-elisabeth-mueller-devadas-rajaram |title=Social Media Storytelling |last2=Rajaram |first2=Devadas |date=2022 |doi=10.4324/9781003275251|isbn=9781003275251 |s2cid=249563030 }}</ref> Influencers use filters to grow engagement and boost follower activity, in order to be seen as unique,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bakhshi |first1=Saeideh |last2=Shamma |first2=David |last3=Kennedy |first3=Lyndon |last4=Gilbert |first4=Eric |date=2015 |title=Why We Filter Our Photos and How It Impacts Engagement |url=https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/14622 |journal=Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=12–21 |doi=10.1609/icwsm.v9i1.14622 |issn=2334-0770|doi-access=free }}</ref> creative, or fascinating. Meta reported that over 600 million people have used an AR effect on Facebook or Instagram.<ref name="newportinstitute.com">{{Cite web |date=2022-03-05 |title=Do You Use a Filter Every Time You Post? |url=https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/co-occurring-disorders/filters-mental-health/ |access-date=2023-03-19 |website=Newport Institute |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[Mobile phone application]]s such as [[Facetune]] allow users to modify their own personal images.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Media |first=Caroline Knorr, Common Sense |title=How girls use social media to build up, break down self-image |work=CNN |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/12/health/girls-social-media-self-image-partner/index.html |access-date=2018-10-30}}</ref> Social media users, especially younger people, are thus exposed to an extreme amount of manipulated imagery presenting unrealistic, unachievable body ideals.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Solon |first=Olivia |date=2018-03-09 |title=FaceTune is conquering Instagram – but does it take airbrushing too far? |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/09/facetune-photoshopping-app-instagram-body-image-debate |access-date=2020-04-04 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> For example, social media platforms such as TikTok have include filters that create an illusion of physical attributes, such as the "skinny filter" and the "perfect skin filter".<ref name="newportinstitute.com"/> Part of the idea of perfection on social media comes from Japanese culture and the word "[[kawaii]]", which translates to an overall aspect of cuteness; exerting fragile, girly, and childlike emotions. Kawaii-enhanced photos present a perception of perfection in a photo booth setting. This notion catalyzed the first selfie phone camera by [[Kyocera]] in 1999, which led to the posting of selfies during the beginnings of [[Myspace|MySpace]] in the early 2000s.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Wong |first=Kristin |title=The Power of Kawaii: How Cute, Squishy Things Influence Us |language=en-US |magazine=Wired |url=https://www.wired.com/story/the-power-of-kawaii/ |access-date=2023-03-19 |issn=1059-1028}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Beauty filters are changing the way young girls see themselves |url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/02/1021635/beauty-filters-young-girls-augmented-reality-social-media/ |access-date=2023-03-19 |website=MIT Technology Review |language=en}}</ref>

=== In advertising ===
Photo manipulation has been used in advertisements for television commercials and magazines to make their products or the person look better and more appealing than how they look in reality.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/digital-media-literacy/the-problem-with-photo-manipulation/1/ |title=Digital Media Literacy: The Problem with Photo Manipulation |website=GCFGlobal.org |language=en |access-date=2020-04-04}}</ref> Some tricks that are used with photo manipulation for advertising are: fake grill marks with eye-liner, using white glue instead of milk, or using deodorant to make vegetables look glossy.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.trulydeeply.com.au/2015/11/food-photography-and-manipulation-in-advertising-why-do-we-accept-knowingly-being-lied-to/ |title=Food photography and manipulation in advertising: Why do we accept knowingly being lied to? |date=2015-11-19 |website=Truly Deeply – Brand Agency Melbourne |language=en-AU |access-date=2020-04-04}}{{Dead Link|date=May 2025}}</ref>

=== Celebrity opposition ===
Photo manipulation has triggered negative responses from both viewers and celebrities. This has led to celebrities refusing to have their photos retouched in support of the [[American Medical Association]] that has decided that "[we] must stop exposing impressionable children and teenagers to advertisements portraying models with body types only attainable with the help of photo editing software".<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/ama-takes-stand-photoshop-medical-association-altering-contributes-unrealistic-expectations-article-1.126921#ixzz1QUW2THCf |title=Photoshop contributes to unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image: AMA |website=NY Daily News |access-date=2016-04-25}}</ref> These include [[Keira Knightley]], [[Brad Pitt]], [[Andy Roddick]], [[Jessica Simpson]], [[Lady Gaga]], and [[Zendaya]].

Brad Pitt had a photographer, [[Chuck Close]], take photos of him that emphasized his flaws. Chuck Close is known for his photos that emphasize the skin flaws of an individual. Pitt did so in an effort to speak out against media using image manipulation software and manipulating celebrities' photos in an attempt to hide their flaws. [[Kate Winslet]] spoke out against photo manipulation in media after ''[[GQ]]'' magazine altered her body, making it look unnaturally thin.<ref>{{cite web |title=Keep It Real Challenge: Photoshop's Impact on Body Image |date=29 June 2012 |access-date=19 April 2015 |url=http://info.umkc.edu/womenc/2012/06/29/keep-it-real-challenge-photoshops-impact-on-body-image/ |website=info.umkc.edu}}</ref> 42-year-old [[Cate Blanchett]] appeared on the cover of [[1843 (magazine)|''Intelligent Life'']]'s 2012 March/April issue, makeup-free and without digital retouching for the first time.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roberts |first=Soraya |title=Cate Blanchett goes without digital enhancement on the cover of Intelligent Life |date=March 22, 2012 |url=http://ca.omg.yahoo.com/blogs/the-juice-celeb-news/cate-blanchett-goes-without-digital-enhancement-cover-intelligent-154517034.html |publisher=The Juice |access-date=March 22, 2012}}</ref>

In April 2010, [[Britney Spears]] agreed to release "un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally altered ones". The fundamental motive behind her move was to "highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/beauty-news/pics-before-after-britney-s-airburshed-candie-s-ads-182755 |title=SEE PICS! Before & After: Britney Spears' airbrushed Candie's ads |last=Claire |first=Marie |date=2010-04-14 |website=Marie Claire |language=en |access-date=2020-04-23}}</ref> In 2014, Hungarian pop vocalist and songwriter [[Boggie]] produced two music videos that achieved global attention for its stance on [[Whitewashing (beauty)|whitewashing]] in the beauty industry: the #1 [[Association of Hungarian Record Companies|MAHASZ]] chart hit "Parfüm" (Hungarian version) and "Nouveau Parfum" (French version) from her self-titled album ''Boggie'', which reached two [[Billboard charts|''Billboard'' charts]] (#3 Jazz Album, #17 World Music Album).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Single Top 40 slágerlista - Hivatalos magyar slágerlisták |url=https://slagerlistak.hu/single-track-top-40-lista/2014/4 |access-date=2023-02-19 |website=slagerlistak.hu}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=It's Boggie for Hungary! |url=https://eurovision.tv/story/it-s-boggie-for-hungary |website=Eurovision |access-date=7 July 2019 |date=28 February 2015}}</ref> In the videos, the artist is shown singing as she is extensively retouched in real-time, ending with a side-by-side comparison of her natural and manipulated images as the song fades out.<ref name="metro">{{cite web |date=January 22, 2014 |title=Boggie Photoshop music video: Singer uses Nouveau Parfum promo to show how digital trickery can transform you &#124; Metro News |url=http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/22/singer-uses-new-music-video-to-show-how-drastically-photoshop-can-transform-you-4273268/ |access-date=1 February 2014 |publisher=metro.co.uk}}</ref>

=== Corporate opposition ===
Some companies have begun to speak out against photo manipulation in advertising their products. [[Dove (toiletries)|Dove]] created the Dove Self-Esteem Fund and the [[Dove Campaign for Real Beauty]] to build confidence in young women, emphasizing "real beauty", or unretouched photographs, in the media.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Evolution Video – Dove Self Esteem Project |website=selfesteem.dove.us |date=2 June 2013 |access-date=1 May 2015 |url=http://selfesteem.dove.us/Articles/Video/Evolution_video_how_images_of_beauty_are_manipulated_by_the_media.aspx |archive-date=September 9, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909052844/http://selfesteem.dove.us/Articles/Video/Evolution_video_how_images_of_beauty_are_manipulated_by_the_media.aspx |url-status=dead }}</ref> Clothing retailer [[Aerie (clothing retailer)|Aerie]]'s<!--- per [[MOS:TMSTYLE]] name is not to be stylized here ---> campaign [[Aerie (clothing retailer)#Aerie Real|#AerieREAL]] emphasizes that their clothes are for everyone and that their advertisements have not been retouched in any way, saying "The real you is sexy."<ref>{{cite web |title=Aerie for American Eagle |access-date=1 May 2015 |url=http://www.ae.com/featured-aeriereal/aerie/s-cat/6890055 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129204635/https://www.ae.com/featured-aeriereal/aerie/s-cat/6890055 |archive-date=January 29, 2017 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Krupnick |first=Ellie |title=Aerie's Unretouched Ads 'Challenge Supermodel Standards' For Young Women |newspaper=The Huffington Post |date=17 January 2014 |access-date=1 May 2015 |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/aerie-unretouched-ads-photos_n_4618139.html}}</ref>

The American Medical Association stated that it is opposed to the use of photo manipulation. Dr. McAneny{{Who|date=February 2021}} made a statement that altering models to such extremes creates unrealistic expectations in children and teenagers regarding body image. He also said that the practice of digitally altering the weight of models in photographs should be stopped, so that children and teenagers are not exposed to body types that cannot be attained in reality. The American Medical Association as a whole adopted a policy to work with advertisers to work on setting up guidelines for advertisements to try to limit how much digital image manipulation is used. The goal of this policy is to limit the number of unrealistic expectations for body image in advertisements.<ref>{{cite web |title=AMA Adopts New Policies at Annual Meeting |date=21 June 2011 |website=ama-assn.org |access-date=19 April 2015 |url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/a11-new-policies.page}}</ref>

=== Government opposition ===
Governments are exerting pressure on advertisers, and are starting to ban photos that are too airbrushed and edited. In the United Kingdom, the [[Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)|Advertising Standards Authority]] has banned an advertisement by [[Lancôme]] featuring [[Julia Roberts]] for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true.<ref>{{cite web |last=Zhang |first=Michael |title=Julia Roberts Makeup Ads Banned in UK for Too Much Photoshop |date=July 27, 2011 |url=http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/27/julia-roberts-makeup-ads-banned-in-uk-for-too-much-photoshop/ |publisher=PetaPixel |access-date=July 27, 2011}}</ref> The US is also moving in the direction of banning excessive photo manipulation where a [[CoverGirl]] model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects, leading to a misleading representation of the product.<ref>{{cite web |last=Anthony |first=Sebastian |title=US watchdog bans photoshopping in cosmetics ads |url=http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/109375-us-bans-photoshop-use-in-cosmetics-ads |access-date=December 16, 2011}}</ref>

In 2015, France proceeded to pass a law that battles against the use of unrealistic body images and anorexia in the fashion industry. This includes modeling and photography. The models now have to show they are healthy and have a BMI of over 18 through a note from their doctor. Employers breaking this law will be fined and can serve a jail sentence of up to six months. When a creator of a photograph does not disclose that the picture is edited or retouched, no matter how small the edit, they may also receive a fine or 30% of the costs of what they used to create their ad.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://petapixel.com/2015/12/22/france-bans-too-thin-fashion-models-demands-that-photoshopping-be-labeled/ |title=France Bans Too-Thin Fashion Models, Demands That Photoshopping Be Labeled |website=petapixel.com |date=December 22, 2015 |access-date=2020-04-04}}</ref>

In 2021, [[Norway]] enacted legislation making it a requirement to label digital manipulations of the bodies of persons when depicted in advertising. Failure to do so is punishable by a fine.<ref name="Onibada 2021">{{cite web |last=Onibada |first=Ade |title=Influencers In Norway Will Legally Have To Disclose Their Photoshopped Images |website=[[BuzzFeed News]] |date=2021-07-01 |url=https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adeonibada/influencers-norway-law-filter-photoshop |access-date=2021-07-03}}</ref>

=== Support ===
Some editors of magazine companies do not view manipulating their [[cover model]]s as an issue. In an interview with the editor of the French magazine ''[[Marie Claire]]'', she stated that their readers are not idiots and that they can tell when a model has been retouched. Also, some who support photo manipulation in the media state that the altered photographs are not the issue, but that it is the expectations that viewers have that they fail to meet, such as wanting to have the same body as a celebrity on the cover of their favorite magazine.<ref>{{cite web |title=In Defense of Photoshop: Why Retouching Isn't As Evil As Everyone Thinks |work=The Cut |date=29 August 2010 |access-date=19 April 2015 |url=http://nymag.com/thecut/2010/08/photoshop_retouching.html}}</ref>

=== Opinion polling ===
A survey done by the United Kingdom-based fashion store [[New Look (company)|New Look]] showed that 90% of the individuals surveyed would prefer seeing a wider variety of body shapes in media. This would involve them wanting to see cover models that are not all thin, but some with more curves than others. The survey also talked about how readers view the use of photo manipulation. One statistic stated that 15% of the readers believed that the cover images are accurate depictions of the model in reality. Also, they found that 33% of women who were surveyed are aiming for a body that is impossible for them to attain.<ref>{{cite web |title=Women Need Further Educating Into Extent of Digital Manipulation of Mo |website=[[PRWeb]] |date=26 November 2013 |access-date=19 April 2015 |url=https://www.prweb.com/releases/women_need_further_educating_into_extent_of_digital_manipulation_of_models_in_mags_new_look_survey_finds/prweb11361783.htm}}</ref>

Dove and People Weekly also did a survey to see how photo manipulation affects the self-esteem of females. In doing this, they found that 80% of the women surveyed felt insecure when seeing photos of celebrities in the media. Of the women surveyed who had lower self-esteem, 70% of them do not believe that their appearance is pretty or stylish enough in comparison to cover models.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/post_2329_b_932086 |title=Why Beauty Ads Should Be Legislated |last1=Matlins |first1=Seth |date=2011-08-22 |website=HuffPost |language=en |access-date=2020-04-23}}</ref>

=== Social and cultural implications ===
The growing popularity of image manipulation has raised concern as to whether it allows for unrealistic images to be portrayed to the public. In her article "[[On Photography]]" (1977), [[Susan Sontag]] discusses the objectivity, or lack thereof, in photography, concluding that "photographs, which fiddle with the scale of the world, themselves get reduced, blown up, cropped, retouched, doctored and tricked out".<ref>{{cite book |last=Sontag |first=Susan |author-link=Susan Sontag |year=1977 |title=[[On Photography]] |page=4}}</ref> A practice widely used in the magazine industry, the use of photo manipulation on an already subjective photograph creates a constructed reality for the individual and it can become difficult to differentiate fact from fiction. With the potential to alter body image, debate continues as to whether manipulated images, particularly those in magazines, contribute to self-esteem issues in both men and women.

In today's world,{{Clarify timeframe|date=February 2021}} photo manipulation has a positive impact by developing the creativity of one's mind or maybe a negative one by removing the art and beauty of capturing something so magnificent and natural or the way it should be. According to ''[[HuffPost|The Huffington Post]]'', "Photoshopping and airbrushing, many believe, are now an inherent part of the beauty industry, as are makeup, lighting and styling". In a way, these image alterations are "selling" actual people to the masses to affect responses, reactions, and emotions toward these cultural icons.<ref>{{cite web |last=L. Boutwell |first=Allison |title=Photoshop: A Positive and Negative Innovation |date=February 5, 2012 |url=http://allisonlboutwell.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/photoshopapositiveandnegativeinnovation/}}</ref>