In today’s media, majority of photographs in magazines, television, advertisements are retouched to make them look “better” and more appealing to the public eye. I had recently red an article in a book and it had asked how do you think photo manipulation/retouching affects a woman personally. I think that the kinds of manipulated images that were mentioned in the article can affect a woman’s esteem and self comfort. By changing the features on a woman to make her look more “appealing” makes the women feel not as beautiful and more self conscious of their personal features that in reality are extremely beautiful but they don’t see it that way. Why would someone change something that is already beautiful? I feel as if photo manipulation can become a little too much when that are cutting gout things such as arms, legs and chests, but when they are changing things such as the texture or tones of the image to make it look softer or more clear then I believe that’s fine because it’s nothing too drastic. Although before any photo manipulations are done, I believe that there should be a sense of permission from the ‘model’ that the photo is of to change any certain characteristics in the photo itself. If a photo has been changed, it should state somewhere on the photo itself that there has been changed made and this is not the original photo so that people are aware.
The OJ Simpson dispute is a perfect example of whether or not photo manipulation is appropriate. OJ’s mug shot that was posted on the front cover of News Week and Time magazine had caused some controversy because of the major differences between the exact same photo. Time magazine had altered the photo to change the images mood/appearance for a different feeling, but is what they did right? At the time the managing editor of time magazine, James Gaines, was asked why he had done it because many people felt as if it wasn’t appropriate. James Gaines has said that “The harshness of the mug shot-the merciless bright light, the stubble on Simpson’s face, had been subtly smoothed and shaped into an icon of tragedy. The expression on his face was not merely blank now; it was bottomless. This cover with the simple, nonjudgmental headline ‘An American Tragedy,’ seemed the obvious, right choice.” When I look at both photo’s beside each other, the differences are so dramatic. The original photo on the cover of News Week with no photo alternations, is more appropriate because it shows the actually feeling and emotion that is being shown from OJ’s expressions. However on Time magazine the alternations more or less seem to make you feel bad for him, it makes him look sad and in great need of help, and the headline “An American Tragedy” to me doesn’t fit. What’s the American Tragedy? The fact that he possibly is a ex-famous football star murderer? Or the fact, that his family had been murdered? It seemed as if they spent more time trying to focus on how OJ looked and felt in the magazine rather then the death of his family and whether or not he had done it. I don’t believe that photo manipulations in news events is appropriate because it’s altering the story then, but as for photo manipulation in ads to make them look more creative/artistic, that shouldn’t be a problem as long as they have permission from the person that is having their photo taken.
