I actually really liked your analogy to photo shop and text editing, and was mostly playing devil’s advocate.

And, I like what you said about it being easy to side with “victims” since we tend to be more sympathetic to them, and I agree that it is important to look at the victors’ point of view as well.

And, for the record, if I had to vote on it, I would vote against the “censorship” of photos.

No, it doesn’t. I guess when I read/watch something I always hope for an open minded unbiased take on a situation. But I don’t often see people think this way.

“You are equating bias in writing with photo shop. I do see what you are saying and its a good point. But in a sense the analogy is faulty because the issue isn’t that the photos are being altered to persuade an audience to buy a product. The issue is that the subliminal effect of the ads is hurting the psyche of individuals to a level where it is becoming a societal problem.”

Doesn’t the subliminal effect happen because we alter the images to persuade people to buy products, look closer at something or make something more interesting to the viewer? This is my question…because we edit text so heavily for the sake of time or for the sake of making someone not sound like an idiot or to make the piece more interesting that isn’t that the reason we do that to persuade the audience to keep reading, to be interested in what we are writing?

“Furthermore, she ends with a statement to the effect of: I dare one magazine to publish an edition without any photo shopped pictures. In this statement, she is asserting subtly that perhaps photo shopping just needs to stop altogether in order to fix the problem of contorted body image.”

The interesting thing about what she said is that she’s not specific. She dares any magazine to not publish photoshopped images. She probably doesn’t mean this…but, it’s presents the thought that there is not a single magazine not photoshopping their photos. Again, which based on the the wide availability and viewership the New York Times has, it concerns me.

“People see what they want to see in many cases, whether the counter argument is presented or not.”

I like that statement. It’s true, because it also applies to me and this comment right now. I don’t enjoy her covert bias…so in many ways I want to find things within her text that that supports my “photoshopping of words” comment. As I did in the previous paragraph. But, you know that’s what I run into all the time with this blog. I present a thought, hoping that I make the thought to the point and easily understood by all so it is understood in the way I understand it, but people DO interpret things differently. And they don’t always understand it the way I would for like them to.

“I guess another thought I had based on your post is that…who is the “victor”?”

I guess what I was saying by “victor” is exactly what you said, people who use retouching as a means to sell a product or service or to make something more entertaining or enjoyable. I feel it feels more “right” to side with victims because it’s the human definition of right and wrong that make us more sympathetic to victims. But, I can’t help but drawn and be also sympathetic to the victors as well. And I feel that the problem I have is our biased sympathizing to people who could be considered “victims.”

Great comments Teach, seriously these are great! Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

The speaker clearly sees a problem with the fashion photography industry, and this is indeed slightly biased in her reporting. But I don’t think she necessarily thinks that disclosing the extent to which photos have been retouched is going to solve the problem. That is why she ends with a statement about just waiting to see how things play out in France….Her attitude isn’t “France is doing this, let’s all give it a try! Great idea!” She thinks that it raises important questions about an important issue, but no where is it evident that she thinks France has the solution to this issue.

Furthermore, she ends with a statement to the effect of: I dare one magazine to publish an edition without any photo shopped pictures. In this statement, she is asserting subtly that perhaps photo shopping just needs to stop altogether in order to fix the problem of contorted body image.

You say that what concerns you is her covert bias. I think the real issue is that many, I’ll even say most, people are too ignorant to be able to recognize bias. This, and also that people see what they want to see in many cases, whether the counter argument is presented or not.

I guess my question is, why is it so bothersome that the video lean towards one side? Does it anywhere state that this video is unbiased? I didn’t think so. So why would you watch something with the title, “Sex, Lies and Photoshop: Why magazines should let readers know if images have been retouched,” and assume that it will paint both sides of the issue equally?

You are equating bias in writing with photo shop. I do see what you are saying and its a good point. But in a sense the analogy is faulty because the issue isn’t that the photos are being altered to persuade an audience to buy a product. The issue is that the subliminal effect of the ads is hurting the psyche of individuals to a level where it is becoming a societal problem.

Of course other art forms can and do have this effect. But many of those have already gone through some sort of censorship (ratings, parental lock options, etc.) So logically, why not let fashion photography be next in a sense if music, movies, video games, and writing have already been targeted?

Obviously the focus of this debate is on fashion photography and extreme photo shopping, but even photojournalists are manipulating reality when they capture a mere second of time and place it in a context. When you think about it, there is nothing more artificial than a second lasting forever.

Admittedly, it is a shame that the media is hurting the body image and confidence of women everywhere. I am certainly a victim of this. My body causes me a lot of stress, and is very probably the thing about myself I dislike the most (and my body is not all that bad). Years of reading fashion magazines has certainly put odd notions in my head of how I should look, but I have to defend fashion photography, because it is only one piece of the pie.

The abundance of unhealthy food options, restaurant portions, and even the food advertising that is juxtaposed with images of perfect bodies all over the place, is a huge part of it too. Family values and dynamics also comprise a part of eating disorder development. And an individual’s psycology is part of it too.

I am no psychologist, but anorexia and other eating disorders, aren’t simply about girls that want to be thin. Eating disorders are about women and men that have bad coping strategies and issues with control. From what I know, most eating disorders aren’t about girls that “think they are fat” but about people that feel like they have no control over their lives and want to feel that they do. The ideal body image, and thinness aspect, is merely the tip of the iceberg…

So interesting post! I liked it a lot.