Real Beauty 2.0

I’m thinking as I peruse my electronic copy of a national photography magazine about some imaging software being advertised in the magazine, that while this software sure is technologically advanced, it is very dangerous in light of the kinds of messages that these photographs can send to our daughters.

Take for instance the photo of the girl who’s probably 10-12 years old in this particular advertisement in the photography magazine. The photo shows two different images of her face: one with freckles on it and the other that looks like she’s been air brushed to appear in a top modeling magazine. Personally, I think the freckes add character to her portrait, but with this software, you can eliminate them and add tones to her face that makes her look older and even includes the appearance of makeup.

I wasn’t going to post a reply to this article, but then thought it over and decided to put my $0.02 in. It’s a slow afternoon.

I started in photography in high school, when my professional photographer uncle let me use his Rolleiflex and taught me how to develop film and print the pictures. Years later, I had my own commercial/wedding/portrait studio, and even taught beginning photography at the local community college for six years, then ran a video production company and eventually directed, shot and edited five direct to DVD movies. So you might say, I have more than a passing knowledge and interest in the field.

First of all, most people want to “look good” in pictures. It’s not really hard to make people look bad. And since the first daguerreotypes, the photographer has done something to try to make the subject look good and his photos “pleasing”. They’re much easier to sell that way. When subjects had to pose extremely still for very long exposures, holding still was probably more important than smiling. Once short exposure times became the norm, the quick smile could easily be caught. Does that smile capture, being possibly an “unnatural behavior” constitute a “dangerous message”? Most would probably think not. Besides, a lot of the time the subjects would put on their “best clothes” to look their best. False image? Manipulation? Probably not.

In fact, any “pose” for a photograph is usually pretty unnatural. The photographer usually tries to get the subject’s most pleasing side and uses various positions of the body and lighting - natural or artificial - to get a pleasing picture. Ever heard of the term “in the best light”?

Once the technology was available to “retouch” negatives or photos, or “colorize” them, it became standard procedure to take advantage of this technique. One of my jobs in a commercial studio was doing “spotting” of photos. Others were hired specifically to “tint” or color sepia toned photos before the color film and print processes were widely and economically commercially available. Were the studios who offered these services sending a “dangerous message”?

When I had my own studio, my clients would pay me to make them look as good and pleasant as possible. I used quite a few photographic and artistic techniques to achieve that for them. In doing so, was I “sending a dangerous message” to others who may not have looked as good or pleasant? If I turned the slightly overweight bride sideways and had her twist her torso toward the camera to make her look slimmer and pleasing, was that “sending a dangerous message?”

He writes: “I’m thinking as I peruse my electronic copy of a national photography magazine about some imaging software being advertised in the magazine, that while this software sure is technologically advanced, it is very dangerous in light of the kinds of messages that these photographs can send to our daughters.”

Since he’s a “photographer”, when his daughter has her school pictures taken, or when she’s having her wedding photos taken, does he want her to wear no makeup and the photographer to not “adjust” the lighting or pose her so she looks the best she can? Would doing those things be “sending a dangerous message” to other females maybe considered not as “pretty”?

Then he writes: “Take for instance the photo of the girl who’s probably 10-12 years old in this particular advertisement in the photography magazine.”

OK. is this where his objection comes in? Is it OK for an older girl or an adult, but not for 10-12 year olds?

This follows: “The photo shows two different images of her face: one with freckles on it and the other that looks like she’s been air brushed to appear in a top modeling magazine.”

Maybe I’m missing the point, but isn’t this illustration he is objecting to specifically done to show the capabilities of the specific software? If so, what’s the problem?

Then: “Personally, I think the freckes [sic] add character to her portrait, but with this software, you can eliminate them and add tones to her face that makes [sic] her look older and even includes the appearance of makeup.”

OK, many might actually share his opinion about the freck[l]es being better. But this is an illustration to show how well the software can handle minute changes in flesh tones, etc. Even to the extent of making it appear like she has makeup on. I suspect that is the exact purpose of that particular illustration, not to cater to someone’s particular notion of “natural”. After all, this software is used for making “unnatural” alterations.

Now comes the underlying opinion bias: “Computer imagery and technology is amazing (and dangerous at the same time) because it allows people to play God...”

Let’s play the logic game, rather than the “feelings” game. Substitute virtually any technology in that sentence for ‘Computer imagery’: ‘Surgery and medical technology’ is amazing (and dangerous at the same time) because it allows people to play God. ‘Scientific research and technology’ is amazing (and dangerous at the same time) because it allows people to play God. ‘Firearms development and technology’ is amazing (and dangerous at the same time) because it allows people to play God.

I don’t know if this is a strawman argument or just a idiotiic sweeping generalization to premise his next statement on. I guess it will work either way.

So he continues: “and in the process totally wreak havoc on the self esteme [sic] of an entire generation of young women who’s [sic] own God did not create them that way. It takes the idea and the slogan of “air-brushing” to a whole different level.”

Let’s see; extrapolating from one particular illustration that highlights the software’s capabilities to the generalization that the use of it will “wreak havoc...on an entire generation of young women...” More and more, his argument echoes of the plaintive whines of the anti-gun establishment who complain that guns kill “whole generations” of people, skillfully leaving out the part where some human being has to willfully put either of those tools to the use being alleged. I don’t like it when the anti-gun lobby humanizes an inanimate object and I don’t really like it when a professed “Christian” does it in their arguments.

Next he professes: “Don’t get me wrong: I like what my photography post-production software can do... Then again, I’m not taking photos of teenage girls and then through the magic of digital photo manipulation, completely changing the shape of their face and the rest of their bodies to make them look like something they’re not in order to sell something.”

I thought the illustration for the software removed her freckles and smoothed her facial skin. Now we’re jumping to face and body reshaping, “in order to sell something.”

Is his objection to “selling something”? Or making them look like something they’re not? Either way, as a photographer, he participates in both of these things, it’s just a matter of degree. If the objection is to “selling something”, then I assume he doesn’t do any commercial work. Because that’s used to “sell something”, from the expertly arranged and lit hamburger for the burger chain to the gleaming diamond ring for the jewelry chain.

And in both of those cases, the photographer is making those products “look like something they’re not”. Does anyone ever get a hamburger in the cardboard or styro box that looks like the one on the menu? Does that ring look like the one in the illustration? Of course not! You don’t expect to. Unless your IQ is much smaller than his average f-stop.

His major objection seems to be with the use of “teenage girls” and “our daughters”. The illustration of the 10-12 girl caught his eye. Like the famous line from Ol’ Will: Methinks the lady dost protest too much”, I think this particular guy protests too much.

Maybe it would be enlightening to look up “defense mechanism” in a first year abnormal psychology textbook. Try “projection”, “dissociation”, “denial” or “reaction formation”. It’s interesting to note that those who seem to have the strong emotional reactions to certain subject matter are often the ones evidencing psychological defense mechanisms. The key is the strong emotions attached to the subject matter. Most normal, well adjusted people won’t have those strong reactions. If they pay attention at all, it’s more like “ho-hum, so what?”

And did you ever notice that the best candidates for pathological defense mechanisms are ones who can’t seem to spell or use appropriate grammar when writing about their trigger subjects? While this guy is only writing in a blog, he’s misspelled words in his blog in exactly the sentences where he exhibits the most emotional investment in his argument.

He concludes: “But, with all the positive that’s been borne from digital photography, we’ve made it easier to not simply alter images, but alter a state of mind and underlying message within the minds of our daughters that tells them that the only way they can be pretty is through artistic photo manipulation — something they’ll never achieve through the mirror or through the dangerous practice of forced dieting and eating disorders that these images suggest.”

By the time our kids are five or six or so, I suspect that they probably know that they’re not going to get that hamburger in the picture. Or that all adults don’t look like cover models. As they grow, their minds develop and they understand reality and the difference between what is advertised and what they actually get. If they don’t, some parents have really fallen down on the job. If young girls are so deluded that they believe they have to look like the latest fashion models, I really don’t think that the problem is with the pictures, the photographers or the software used to manipulate those pictures. Someone isn’t instilling some understanding of reality in them.

From Todd’s picture, it’s obvious that he hasn’t bought into the young, six-pack abs and athletic build that young males have supposedly been sold into, similar to the air brushed young magazine models. If not, why not? Or is his physical appearance an outward manifestation of male dystopia as an adverse reaction to not being able to live up to the fantasy world male image that media/advertising foisted upon him at an early age? As he claims girls are subjected to?

As many times as I’ve seen this type of person’s rants in various media, I’m inclined to go with the defense mechanism theory. Reaction formation, more than likely.

I could be wrong. Then again, I’m probably not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.