Editorial: Excessive photoshopping not necessary but acceptable

From what appeared to be a botched retouch job of Demi Moore on the December 2009 cover of W… From what appeared to be a botched retouch job of Demi Moore on the December 2009 cover of W to the BBC documentary “My Supermodel Baby,” which revealed that even model babies have their fat rolls airbrushed away, Photoshopping has dominated the media for the past year.

Interestingly enough, recent headlines have focused not on excessive photoshopping but a lack of photoshopping.

The most recent celebrity trend seems to be releasing un-photoshopped pictures, and many people are applauding these celebrities’ decisions for promoting more realistic standards of beauty. Harper’s Bazaar recently ran a piece called “The Naked Truth: Celebrities, Unretouched,” which featured Kim Kardashian naked and un-photoshopped. In addition, Jessica Simpson appeared on the May cover of Marie Claire without makeup or image enhancement.

Probably snagging the most media attention, however, was Britney Spears, who had her raw Candies advertisement photos released side by side with the edited ones. Seeing a healthy but imperfect pink bikini-clad Britney Spear’s next to her drastically altered near-perfection self, made many people wonder whether photo adjustment has gone too far.

The aesthetically enhanced Spears appears without bruises, tattoo-less and without cellulite — acceptable retouches. The drastic slimming of her thighs and already small waist, in addition to the total reconstruction of her backside, however, caused concern that edited images create unrealistic standards for young men and women. It’s possibly promoting not shoes, but eating disorders and unhealthy self-images.

This is nothing new.

Last year, politicians in France even pushed for legislation that would require publishers, through its department of health, to note whether or not a photo was retouched, according to an article in the Huffington Post.

But aren’t all photos retouched? It seems easier to assume that all images are retouched and instead state when an image has not felt the airbrush.

There really isn’t anything shocking about an edited photo. Our society prefers its products — and its people — to be polished and perfected, so photos wouldn’t be any different.

You wouldn’t pay for a magazine that didn’t edit and perfect its articles, so why would you pay for unedited photos?

While it might not be entirely necessary for magazines and advertisers to make thin models appear even thinner — like in the case of Ralph Lauren model Filippa Hamilton, who was photoshopped to the point of her hips appearing slimmer than her head — or to airbrush the fat rolls off babies, they’re simply trying to sell a product, not to promote false images of beauty.

And as for consumers, we just need to be aware that the real thing never looks as good as the advertisement. We all know the burger you get at McDonald’s never resembles the one you see on the billboard, so consumers just need to be aware that Britney Spears, as well as other celebrities and models, aren’t actually as flawless as they appear in their photos. Be conscious about it.