FAST FACTS:

1. In a 2009 study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), 14.5% of high school girls reported not eating for at least 24 hours to lose
weight, while 5.4% of girls... vomited or took laxatives to keep from gaining weight.
2. In March of 2012, Israel passed a law that requires advertisements to disclose
when their models have been digitally thinned.
3. According to a study done by The National Eating Disorder Association, 42% of
1st through 3rd grade girls want to be thinner and 81% of 10 year olds are afraid of being
fat. Of American elementary school girls who read magazines, 69% say that the pictures
influence their concept of the ideal body image shape; 47% say the pictures make them
want to lose weight.
4. In 2013, the National Advertising Division (NAD) investigated and determined
that when Covergirl made a qualified performance claim [for mascara], but then
artificially enhanced the picture of the models lashes the picture served as a false
product demonstration.
5. The average young person views more than 3000 ads per day on television, on the
Internet, on billboards, and in magazines.

The manipulation and enhancement of photos, whether for people, food, or other items,
has been implemented since the creation of photography. Even Lincoln participated, compositing

his head with Southern politician John Calhouns body for a now nearly-iconic portrait. Fast
forward to the digital age and nothing has changed. Programs such as Photoshop and others like
it allow photographers to project a different reality to those who view their pictures.
Arguably, the most harmful of these edited photos are doctored images of people, made
thinner, taller, and flaw-free by the hands of the computer. The backlash to this age-old
phenomenon is a serious one: eating disorders, negative moods, and low self-esteem start to
both physically and mentally take shape. In a Brandeis University paper, it expands on the fact
that photoshopped images create unrealistic ideals about body image. This perverted sense of
beauty drives people, mainly women, to drastic means of body alteration through the forms of
excessive dieting, starving. and shaming of oneself.
One study conducted in Fiji only proves the harsh point. In it, young teenage girls were
shown television, a cultural phenomenon they almost never experience, to investigate the
viewing of it in relation to eating disorders. The results, unsurprisingly enough, were that the
girls exposed to those visuals were more inclined to want to be skinnier or go on a diet. Because
of such hardly attainable beauty presented on the screens we stare into, it is evident from this that
our perceptions of normal looks are skewed. The constant images plastered all over magazines,
television, and internet slowly eat away at our rational standards for attractiveness and replace it
with feelings of unconfidence and inadequacy.
There has been some media backlash to this synthetic beauty through the very magazines
and the like that practice photoshop. The Dove soap company, for instance, launched The Dove
Campaign for Real Beauty, a study where they discovered that most women did not identify
with the word beautiful. This was due largely to the limited diversity of them in the media.

Celebrities have included themselves in anti-photoshop campaigns as well, with the likes of
Keira Knightley, tennis star Andy Roddick, and Jessica Simpson.
Not only do many feel the emotional baggage carried from images, but also condemn the
images for being misleading. Under the National Press Photographers Associations Code of
Ethics,
Visual journalists should be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of
subjects Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images
content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way
that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
Therefore, not only does the digital manipulation of photos go against general ethical and
moral grounds, but also takes its place in the code of press photographers as a dishonest form of
journalism.
On the other end of the spectrum, some defend the use of photoshopping men and
women. One reason for such a stand is that unretouched photographs could actually distort
reality rather than the opposite; Prolonged activity in front of a camera can add a redder density
under the skin due to a rush of blood to the extremities. Also, the way a person is positioned in
front of a camera can create a sort of optical illusion, causing body parts to seem different than
they are in real life.
Another argument for the use of photoshop comes from Amanda Fortini of the New York
Magazine, who states that heavy editing of photos should be expected by viewers. Audiences
should understand that virtually every image they see in magazines has been digitally altered in
some way. For this reason, people should not be threatened and have lowered self-esteem; they
should take the pictures as artistic cartoons and caricatures for ones enjoyment. If we drop the

idea that these computerized models bear any resemblance to reality, perhaps we would not feel
conned.
One writer from The Huffington Post, Elizabeth Perle, even goes as far to say that
photoshop is not really the problem we should be fighting. It is merely a small part of an entire
flawed system, filled with misconceptions and construed expectations of what is realistically
attractive. Even without digital alteration of photos, she claims, we would still have pressured
put on public figures to look a certain way and view them as objects. Magazines, websites, and
other sources of altered photos will never stop, so the public shouldnt waste their energy on an
argument they wont win. Rather, they should channel their energy to a more practical solution:
combating the cultural ideals of beauty.
In the end, no matter what side you are on the debate of the use of photoshop, it does
have its justifications and its downfalls. Unhealthy obsession and discomfort with aesthetic
appeal can result from digital photo manipulation, influencing both men and women to change
how they look, a stand some companies and celebrities are taking. One could even say that
photoshop is infringing on the codes of ethics for visual journalists. Simultaneously, this editing
might do the exact opposite and create a more truthful image, hiding the unflattering effects of
being in front of the camera. Also, this sort of photography should be no surprise to anyone at
this day and age, so anyone trying to live up to the standards they portray would have hard time,
to say the least. Lastly, speaking out against photoshop alone will not change much; our culture
will still find a fresh cheek to inject its toxic conceptions of beauty into, no matter what. Perhaps
someday in the future, we will find a way to celebrate all diverse forms in all types of people.
But until then, its off to the surgeon.

Q1: The use of photoshop and other digital manipulation techniques is pervasive throughout
American culture and the world. Digital manipulation of photographs can be seen anywhere by
anyone, influencing those who view it. With this in mind, should photoshop be allowed in our
culture (including magazines, television, and the internet)?