BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Examples of digital manipulation in celebrity pictures

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Olulabelle
02:12 / 25.02.06
Praying Mantis posted a link on her LJ to a site which she, Nina and I were having a conversation about, and which I think it's important as many people as possible should see.

It's a link to a site of a company which digitally manipulates images of celebrities and it shows the 'before and after' images of many retouched photographs. As Praying Mantis said, "everyone knows about photoshop, but it's remarkable to see it so clearly delineated." And "There are a lot of them, but I really recommend clicking through to see all the pictures."

This thread has the potential to be a much bigger conversation than the simple act of viewing the images or talking about the artistry involved in digital manipulation, or how that digital manipulation can affect the personal self-image for the millions of people who view the finished photographs. Because of this we did discuss where this thread would go. We decided to post it in Conversation because sometimes threads in 'Headshop' and 'A,F&D' (where it also might fit) get overlooked and also because, in the first instance I think it's important that we all just consider the images we see without a prefixed point of discussion.

The site is here and to view the images first click on "portfolio," then "before/after".
 
 
All Acting Regiment
02:38 / 25.02.06
Yes, isn't it amazing? Just to see fat, spots, and wrinkles on these people is a real kick in the balls, even to someone who tries to be a critical thinker and "in theory" knows about photoshopping and all that. To see it actually there in front of you is a real shock.

It also makes a lot of them seem much more attractive, approachable and sympathetic. Photoshop images = the new statuary? Hmm.
 
 
Smoothly
12:11 / 25.02.06
I'm really surprised that anyone is shocked by this. And I don't really understand what you're getting at, Lula. Why is it important that as many people as possible see this? Is it more important than seeing people undressed, without make-up?
 
 
ghadis
12:24 / 25.02.06
I don't really get what the fuss is about either. Surely this sort of thing has gone on for as long as fashion photography has been about. Sure, the technology is more advanced but airbrushing, darkroom tricks and the use of lighting and make up to hide blemeshes and touch up photos has always been a part of it. Nice touch to see it on the site though.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:31 / 25.02.06
I found it quite fascinating, personally-

"everyone knows about photoshop, but it's remarkable to see it so clearly delineated."

Exactly. Flipping back and forth between the images is quite different from just knowing they've been touched up.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
12:45 / 25.02.06
I agree, the effect is quite startling. It made me consider that the images of people we are encouraged to see as perfect and beautiful, and role models to physically aspire to, are actually not really of any human beings who walk the planet.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
12:51 / 25.02.06
I thought it was fun too - being able to flick back and forth between plain and perfected images. Although I am extraordinarily good-looking in reality, there is a portrait in the attic that looks very like an unphotoshopped version of me.
 
 
Smoothly
13:02 / 25.02.06
I'm startled by what people are startled by. But to pursue ghadis's point, where does this kind of thing fit into all the other technlogies for concealing flaws and improving appearance? Has anyone seen a person fresh out of the shower and concluded that the people they see in the street in clothes, make-up, and supportive underwear are not really human beings?
 
 
Olulabelle
13:30 / 25.02.06
It's not that we don't know it's done, it's seeing the extent of it. For instance I knew that oftem spots and things were photoshopped but not whole sections of facial colouring, freckles, etc. I know arms were made thinner, and bits shaded off bottoms, but I didn't realise that images of women were actually split in half and moved to make the woman thinner all over.

And anyway, knowing is not the same as seeing.

Maybe 'important' is too strong a word. I don't know. Actually, I really don't think it is. It is important that people (especially young females) see the original photos. We are bombarded with flawless perfection everyday and we come to accept that as normality. We are led to believe that celebrities actually look like their manipulated images and unless one hobnobs with such people on a regular basis, or are actually shown the evidence that they don't it becomes hard not to think that the perfection we see is due to diet and exercise and good skincare, and that if we put as much effort into our appearance 'we could look like this too'.

I'm absolutely not qualified to talk about this in any intellectual capacity, only from my experience of being a female in modern society. In that respect, the site certainly shocked me, even though I know that technically this is done all the time.
 
 
Dead Megatron
13:35 / 25.02.06
If you pay attention to Paris & Nicole pic, you'll notice the dog didn't get any work done.

Now, that's real beauty.
 
 
Shrug
14:20 / 25.02.06
Yes, fascinating. It's a reasonably mundane thought but seeing the before and after left me wondering as to the necessity of the digital manipulation at all. All the subjects are extremely attractive people in any case and the untouched up photographs didn't really change my opinion on that.

The subjects are marketed, the images streamlined, the appearances made aspirational. But is there also a kind of artistic merit to it being that what it works within is a strictured representational mode?

Lula: There's also an increasing counter-balance to those perfect celebrity pictures from Heat magazine et al. Those OMFG look at her arm fat!! (type things). Is this equally counter-productive being that these aspirational characters are derided just for being normal? It always seemed a bit vicious to me at least and less of an attack on the person and more like snide commentary on the everyday bodily incongruities we all must face. Or is this derision less malign in intent working as catharsis for the masses?

(possibly talking bollox here I apologise)
 
 
Smoothly
14:31 / 25.02.06
We are bombarded with flawless perfection everyday and we come to accept that as normality

I'm sorry but I just don't buy this. At least I think it's wildly overstated. Only an agorophobic could imagine that the images of people in perfume ads are representative of normality.

it becomes hard not to think that the perfection we see is due to diet and exercise and good skincare, and that if we put as much effort into our appearance 'we could look like this too'.

A tangent perhaps, but heaven forbid that young women pursue beauty through diet, exercise and good skin-care.
I agree that people can become deluded about the degree of physical perfection that is achievable for them, but I don't think the tendency of the beautiful to put it down to healthy-eating, regular exercise and taking care of their skin is the problem part.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:33 / 25.02.06
Shrub, I think to some extent it is catharsis for the masses. A headline on a magazine advertised on telly at the moment says, "What the celebrities really weigh."

I haven't and won't buy it because I find reading womens magazines a horrific experience; you start off thinking you look good and your clothes are fine and you generally end up hiding under the duvet, weeping.

However, I would imagine that the 'real weight' of the celebrities is something more along the lines of what the women reading it want to hear, i.e. similar to them and heavier than expected. If the recorded weights are true (which is somewhat doubtful given the celebrity trend to keep such things quiet) then in some ways this is a good thing. It means the general public feel less ashamed of themselves physically when comparing themselves with celebrities, and that's also the reason for the arm fat photos. The likes of 'Heat' etc know that women want to be reassured the celebrities have fat and spots too and that is what has created the recent trend to show it in full colour glory and with red circles around the 'offending' bits.

But I also think that parading 'bad' celeb photos is just as damaging in some ways as parading digitially manipulated ones. It still says that body fat or hairy armpits or lines or freckles are something to be ridiculed, and that those things are not attractive. The digitally manipulated pictures say it because the celebs appear not to have these things, the unmanipulated pictures say it because they're published mockingly.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:47 / 25.02.06
Smoothly, the point is that often the beauty of the celebs is NOT down to exercise and skincare, so regardless of the amount of effort women put in to rigorously persuing these pastimes, they are never going to look as good as the digitally manipulated images they see. I'm not for a minute suggesting that there is no point exercising! I might be suggesting that skincare routines which cost fortunes are probably not worth investing in though.

Only an agorophobic could imagine that the images of people in perfume ads are representative of normality.

Absolutely. I apologise for my use of the word normality. Do I mean the aspirational norm? There are few (if any) public images of women in the fashion and beauty word which show healthy, ordinary women with all their flaws and imperfections. So from an early age girls are 'taught' that clothes and beauty products relate to looking perfect. Adverts tell us that we should buy A or B product in order to look 'ten years younger' or as beautiful as the celebrity promoting it.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm probably not saying it very well.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:49 / 25.02.06
Adverts tell us that we should buy A or B product in order to look 'ten years younger' or as beautiful as the celebrity promoting it.

I should add: But because the images are manipulated, the celebrity promoting the product does not look like that IRL and never will.
 
 
Smoothly
15:03 / 25.02.06
I think I understand what you're saying Lula, but I think there's some myth-making here that I don't really concur with.

I think it's true that people are often delusional about what they can achieve. I started a thread about it a while ago in fact.
But I get the impression here that those held up as aspirationally beautiful are in some way fraudulent. For example, on the website referred to here, did anyone look at any of the 'before' shots and think 'God, what a pig!'? To be honest, in some I had to flip back and forth a few times to see exactly what had been tweaked.

There are some beautiful people in the world, these people are often employed for their beauty, and often even this beauty is finessed a little. But we all finesse our appearance a little. Are you saying that no one should? Or that only beautiful people shouldn't. Or magazines shouldn't?
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:20 / 25.02.06
I dunno Smoothly, I think that this process is bound to have an effect. That is, I think it is quite plausible that the aesthetic values behind the changes are filtering through to people, whether we like it or not, and regardless of the fact that we know it goes on. It is beauty propoganda.

For instance, I was pretty surprised to see Billy Bob Thornton had been touched up. We all know he is a craggy old geezer, but somehow it is "better" to smooth him out a little. There is something fucked up right there.
 
 
Smoothly
15:32 / 25.02.06
That might seem fucked up to you, Lurid, but I expect that a lot of people would find Billy Bob a little more attractive slightly less rumpled.

There might be an argument that the media is conspiring to create standards of attractiveness and imposing them on a population that would feel differently without the brainwashing, in order to sell face-smoothing treatments, but I think it's a push. Occam's Razor nudges me towards the view that there are things people find attractive and unattractive (dictated by a culture in which the media plays a part, sure), and that people will tweak their appearance towards those ideals.
It might be a better world if we all let it all hang out and conceal nothing. But my question is why the kind of manipulation being criticised here is any worse than tucking your gut in or combing your hair.
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:53 / 25.02.06
There might be an argument that the media is conspiring to create standards of attractiveness and imposing them on a population that would feel differently without the brainwashing, in order to sell face-smoothing treatments, but I think it's a push.

I doubt that the process is that deliberate, but I very much question the idea that there is a obvious or natural measure of beauty that we all agree on. Which is to say that yes, I do think various forms of the media work to support particular ideals of beauty. This isn't an all encompassing brainwash, but I think there is something to it.
 
 
Smoothly
16:00 / 25.02.06
Yeah, I think there's something to that too. There's a good discussion to be had about why we find (un)attractive the things we do. But I didn't get the impression that that was what Lula was getting it.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
16:02 / 25.02.06
But I get the impression here that those held up as aspirationally beautiful are in some way fraudulent. For example, on the website referred to here, did anyone look at any of the 'before' shots and think 'God, what a pig!'?

I don't think you get what this is about. It's not about aspirational beauty. It's not about super knickers and how you look in a dress. This is about the fact that when you sit down on a beach everyone, anyone in the whole world, has a stomach that folds over. Fashion and celebrity magazines tell us, through the use of photoshop that it's not the case. But it is! It is the case! It's not about looking like a pig or ugliness, it's about what is within the realms of reality because the truth is that even surgery aint gonna get rid of the way the body fits together.
 
 
ibis the being
16:09 / 25.02.06
I'm with Smoothly here... I wasn't the least bit shocked, but I was entertained.

Mostly, though, I was impressed by the beauty of the photographs. They do nice work. They're not documentary photographers, they're art/editorial photographers, and good ones, judging by their portfolio. Their job is not to present a human face as the human face "really" looks (which could be a whole long discussion unto itself), but to present an image that is balanced in composition and color or value, visually appealing, compelling, and attractive in some way beyond the merely visual (tells a story or makes a statement about the subject).
 
 
Smoothly
16:28 / 25.02.06
This is about the fact that when you sit down on a beach everyone, anyone in the whole world, has a stomach that folds over. Fashion and celebrity magazines tell us, through the use of photoshop that it's not the case. But it is! It is the case!

You know this is the case, but other people don't. Is that what you're saying?

You'd think that magazines make the human body unrecognisable by redesigning it to make it behave plainly impossible ways. Maybe they do, maybe I'm seeing the wrong magazines.
Are there any examples on the FluidEffect website which demonstrate what you're talking about, Nina? Anything you just would never see on someone younger, less blemished, in better condition?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:01 / 25.02.06
heaven forbid that young women pursue beauty through diet, exercise and good skin-care

Skin-care is fair enough I suppose, but I'd like to see the other things encouraged less fervently than they currently are, rather than forbidden. Young people and people in general could do with being made to feel bad about what they do or don't eat a little less often - especially when the goal posts are so often being changed, in a blatant attempt to keep us anxious and ready to spend a little extra on some bread-free bread, or whatever it is this week. And many of the gyms across this land could benefit, could they not, from a good fire-bombing. Not while anyone was inside, though, obviously.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:02 / 25.02.06
What does it mean to be in "better condition", by the way?
 
 
Smoothly
17:24 / 25.02.06
In a better state of health, fitness or physical repair. Like a well maintained car, or having glossy hair and gums.
 
 
Olulabelle
17:36 / 25.02.06
But Smoothly, those people on that site, those celebrities were already beautiful and in fact one could argue I suppose that they are representative of the most beautiful of human beings as far as western society is concerned.

So if we are all agreed they already were fairly amazing looking, can you tell me why you think it's OK that some of the women have been divided in half and pushed together in order to look thinner? Why the thin model with the curvy tummy has had it deleted and has been given an almost concave one?

It's not the same as putting on make-up. It's presenting already beautiful human beings in a completely unreal light. The manipulations are things that are impossible for the celebrity to achieve, let alone the rest of us.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:43 / 25.02.06
Smoothly, I get what you're saying but I don't think you realise the fairly brutal effect that these sorts of images can have on someone prone to anxieties about hir body. A 14-year-old developing problems like that is less likely to be comparing hirself to the guy or girl next door than to the figures in the fashion magazines, who are presented, and come to be seen as, the norm for health and beauty. Everyone else is seen as fat. Even a more mature person with a good idea of how the fashion and diet industries work can still experience painful reactions to images like this.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that some of the figures we see in such images, especially the females, would have to be ill to be that shape in real life. (The two women on the sofa would probably have ceased menstruating and be at risk of infertility, weakened bones, ect.)
 
 
Smoothly
18:23 / 25.02.06
Lula, exactly how beautiful do you have to be before it's no longer OK?

Mordant, I know what you're saying. It sucks be compared to representations of beauty we'll never achieve. And that's true whether they're pictures on billboards or the real thing. I'd say it's even more intimidating and confidence-sapping in the flesh. But that's life. There will always be people more attractive than you or me. And there will always be people less attractive. I assume you're aware that yours represent a depressingly unachievable body for many. Would it be wrong to put you in a magazine?

It's quite possible that someone might make themselves ill trying to achieve the body-shape of someone they admire. But I don't think we should legislate against representations of unhealthy body shapes. If we did, we'd have to ban fat people along with the thin people. Would that be progress?

And I still don't see why this is different from wearing make-up, wigs, push-up bras or a pair of socks in your pants. I dare say foundation gives your complexion a smoothness you'd never be able to achieve without it. What's the diff?
 
 
Olulabelle
19:01 / 25.02.06
Lula, exactly how beautiful do you have to be before it's no longer OK?

Where did I say it wasn't OK to be beautiful? That's a pretty weird question. It's OK to be as beautiful as you actually are. Very very if you are very very.

My issue is with manipulating images of already beautiful people to make them what someone has decided is 'more beautiful' by making them look impossibly thin or completely flawless, thereby suggesting to the general public who view the pictures that these people physically look a way that is basically unobtainable in real life.
 
 
alas
19:02 / 25.02.06
Smoothly--I do think you're not quite getting what's at stake here; I don't think Lula or anyone else is saying that it's not okay for models to be beautiful. Personally, I find Susan Bordo's work helpful. Her book on this basic subject is Unbearable Weight. But here's a more recent discussion, from the Chronicle Of Higher Education 12/19/2003.

In her earlier book she makes the case that while we "know" that 60-year old Cher can only look the way she does through plastic surgery and photoshopping, we don't completetly know this, because the images are more powerful; they override the knowledge. And, she argues this disconnect has consequences.

Here's the beginning of her more recent Chronicle article; if you want to read the whole thing, PM me, because you have to subcribe or pay to get it.

The Empire of Images in Our World of Bodies

By SUSAN BORDO

In our Sunday news. With our morning coffee. On the bus, in the airport, at the checkout line. It may be a 5 a.m. addiction to the glittering promises of the infomercial: the latest in fat-dissolving pills, miracle hair restoration, makeup secrets of the stars. Or a glancing relationship while waiting at the dentist, trying to distract ourselves from the impending root canal. A teen magazine: tips on how to dress, how to wear your hair, how to make him want you. The endless commercials and advertisements that we believe we pay no attention to.

Constant, everywhere, no big deal. Like water in a goldfish bowl, barely noticed by its inhabitants. Or noticed, but dismissed: "eye candy" -- a harmless indulgence. They go down so easily, in and out, digested and forgotten.

Just pictures.

Or perhaps, more accurately, perceptual pedagogy: "How To Interpret Your Body 101." It's become a global requirement; eventually, everyone must enroll. Fiji is just one example. Until television was introduced in 1995, the islands had no reported cases of eating disorders. In 1998, three years after programs from the United States and Britain began broadcasting there, 62 percent of the girls surveyed reported dieting. The anthropologist Anne Becker was surprised by the change; she had thought that Fijian aesthetics, which favor voluptuous bodies, would "withstand" the influence of media images. Becker hadn't yet understood that we live in an empire of images and that there are no protective borders. . . . .

In my 1993 book Unbearable Weight, I described the postmodern body, increasingly fed on "fantasies of re-arranging, transforming, and correcting, limitless improvement and change, defying the historicity, the mortality, and, indeed, the very materiality of the body. In place of that materiality, we now have cultural plastic."
 
 
Smoothly
19:07 / 25.02.06
Sorry, Lula, I was referring to this.

So if we are all agreed they already were fairly amazing looking, can you tell me why you think it's OK that some of the women have been divided in half and pushed together in order to look thinner?

If it's relevant that they were already 'fairly amazing looking' I just wondered how amazing looking they had to be to qualify. Possibly I just misunderstood you.

Sorry, gotta go out. Will come back to this and alas's points later.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:10 / 25.02.06
And I still don't see why this is different from wearing make-up, wigs, push-up bras or a pair of socks in your pants. I dare say foundation gives your complexion a smoothness you'd never be able to achieve without it. What's the diff?

I suppose one example is that celebrities are put on pedestals in our society and many teenage girls strive to look like their idol. Seeing manipulated images of that idol with an unrealistic body shape means the girls can begin to believe it's possible to achieve that level of thinness, when it actually isn't without getting very ill.

Don't you think that's different from wearing a push-up bra?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
19:18 / 25.02.06
It sucks be compared to representations of beauty we'll never achieve. And that's true whether they're pictures on billboards or the real thing. I'd say it's even more intimidating and confidence-sapping in the flesh. But that's life. There will always be people more attractive than you or me. And there will always be people less attractive.

First off, I personally don't consider the doctored photos to be necessarily more attractive than the originals and I don't find them confidence-sapping. I don't find being around conventionally attractive people confidence-sapping either. I'm more interested in, impressed by (and intimidated by) personality and accomplishments.


I assume you're aware that yours represent a depressingly unachievable body for many. Would it be wrong to put you in a magazine?

Actually you'd actually have to go quite a long way to find someone who wanted to look like me. You'd have to go even further to find someone of comparable age and health who was unable to accomplish it. And yes, I would say that it would be wrong to present me an aspirational figure in the way that models and starlets are presented, although for different reasons.

It's quite possible that someone might make themselves ill trying to achieve the body-shape of someone they admire. But I don't think we should legislate against representations of unhealthy body shapes.

I don't think anyone was talking about legislation. What I'd like to see would be more awareness of the degree to which images are manipulated, and a bigger variety of different body-types in the media. Does that sound reasonable?

And I still don't see why this is different from wearing make-up, wigs, push-up bras or a pair of socks in your pants. I dare say foundation gives your complexion a smoothness you'd never be able to achieve without it. What's the diff?

All of the above are realistic, non-injurious options for the average person. Not everyone can spring for plastic surgery (nor should they), but most of us can run to a tube of concealer.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
20:07 / 25.02.06
My issue is with manipulating images of already beautiful people to make them what someone has decided is 'more beautiful' by making them look impossibly thin or completely flawless, thereby suggesting to the general public who view the pictures that these people physically look a way that is basically unobtainable in real life.

....
....

...I still don't see why this is different from wearing make-up, wigs, push-up bras or a pair of socks in your pants. I dare say foundation gives your complexion a smoothness you'd never be able to achieve without it. What's the diff?


Yes, what is the difference?


In her earlier book she makes the case that while we "know" that 60-year old Cher can only look the way she does through plastic surgery and photoshopping, we don't completetly know this, because the images are more powerful; they override the knowledge.

Unless that image is a video image, in which case no make-up can disguise the fact that her hands look like Skeletor's hands.

So do we simply allow ourselves to be victims of the image's power to "override" our knowledge of what Cher actually looks like in person (which, personally, I am far from allowing)? At what point do we assume personal responsibility?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply