Digital Photo Doctoring
For this assignment I chose to edit two photos that varied significantly in their subject
content. I went this route in order to begin to exemplify the wide variety of uses and
applications of photo editing. My first photo consists of a face shot of a woman (guessed
to be middle-aged). My second photo is of a patchy lawn in need of repair/a little tlc. I
used Photoshop CS6 to edit both photos.
Editing the Photos
My editing goals for the 1st photo (the woman) were to make her look younger. Overall, I
wanted to make her look beautiful, defined in the current Hollywood-sense (young, thin,
perfect skin, a supple mouth, and bright eyes). To achieve this effect I used a Gaussian
blur mask to smooth and even out her skin tone (this edit took care of her wrinkles and
most of her age spots). To remove any remaining blemishes I used the content-aware spot
heal tool. To make my model smile, I copied the mouth area from another photo (likely
already digitally edited) and pasted it on her. I auto-color blended the layers to ensure a
seamless fit/transition. To change the eye color in the photo, I created a hue/saturation
layer that affected only the eye area and then blended it using a lower opacity and an
overlay effect. With this edit, I did consciously make her eyes a bit unrealistic because 1.
I thought they were cool looking and 2. I wanted to see if they’d tip of the 3 subjects I’d
be showing the image to. To make my model look slightly more “chiseled” I used the
liquify filter to narrow out her cheek area as well as to pucker in her cheeks just a bit.
The editing for my 2nd photo (the lawn) was a bit simpler than for the woman
picture. My goals for this photo were to make it appear as if a landscaping company had
come in to repair and fix the yard up. To mend the patchy lawn I used the clone stamp
tool to replicate the grassy areas onto the bare areas. I also used this tool to even out the
color of the concrete pathway. To eliminate the crooked/leaning white fence, I used the
content-aware extend tool to move the bush over the top of it. To try and eliminate some
of the blur my editing created along the grass/pathway line, I used the spot-heal brush
(with a “grass-shape”) to better define this edge.
The editing for both photos was actually quite easy to accomplish. Being new
with the technology, I searched for tutorial videos on Youtube. After watching a few
videos ranging from 3-10 minutes each, I was able to carry out the edits in roughly the
same amount of time. I actually edited both photos twice, since I wanted to try out more
of the edit features available (I’ve only included the edited outcome versions I like the
best/turned out the best). During the altering process, I also undid edits after making
changes because 1. I just wanted to play around with software (it’s almost astonishing
how many different functions and features are available) and 2. I preferred the photo(s)
without the additional edits (e.g. changing the woman’s hair color –she didn’t look as
good with red hair I thought).
Showing Off the Edits
After completing the editing process, I showed the images to 3 people. My 1st subject was
a college-aged male. I first showed him the edited version of the female headshot. His
reaction to the image was negative. He said her eyes looked faked (“I’ve never seen
anyone with eyes that color before”) and couldn’t get over that part of the image. I then
showed him the original photo. He was amazed at the change I was able to conduct once
seeing the before and after images. He said that the second photo looked like she was just
wearing makeup. When asked which photo he preferred, he said neither since he did not
think the woman was particularly attractive. I then showed him the edited lawn version
followed by the original. Again he was impressed with the edits. He said he obviously
preferred the edited version. He did point out the slight bit of blur present on the
grass/pathway edge. He noted that he would most likely not notice this fact though, had
he come across just the edited version (rather than knowing that it was an edit and being
able to compare the before and after shots).
My 2nd subject was a college-aged female. Just as with my first subject, I showed
the photos to her in the following order: woman edit, woman original, lawn edit, and
lawn original. When she saw the 1st image, she made a kind of giggle noise and said she
wishes she could have such cool looking eyes. After showing her the original, she was
slightly sad that the eyes were in fact not real. She said the edited woman was much
prettier than the original. Her reaction to the lawn photos was that she could never have a
lawn as good looking as the edited photo; in fact probably not as good as the original
either. She also commented that she was aware of photo editing in places such as print
media, but that she doesn’t give it much attention; she says a girl can dream of having a
‘perfect’ body or getting that guy with the six-pack.
My 3rd subject was a middle-aged female. I first showed her the image of the
edited woman. She commented on how nice her skin was and how beautiful her eyes
were. I then showed her the altered lawn photo. She commented by saying she wished her
lawn could look like that. Finally, I showed her side-by-side comparisons of each pairing
of edited and non-edited photos. At first she did not believe I had done the editing; it
shocked her a bit. She said that the woman looks much younger in the edited photo and
that it would be nice if we could all “edit” ourselves in the morning like that. She did not
have much to say about the lawn comparison, just that she preferred the edited one.
Clothing Company Policies
As an employee of a clothing company that digitally modifies images, I think it is
important for the company to have certain policies in place to ensure viewers of our
images do not experience harmful perceptions or reactions. Overall, I think it is important
for our advertisements to convey reality as much as possible; in other words, as little
editing as possible. This will ensure viewers perceptions and reactions are accurate, since
they are responding to real images and visual situations.
1. We will not digitally alter the appearance of our clothing products.
I believe it is important for our products to look true to nature in advertisements.
Customers often develop an interest or make purchase decisions based upon the look of
clothing. If we alter the look of our products, then customers will form incorrect
perceptions of our clothing. This may cause potential buyers to opt out, since they dislike
the [actually modified] look, or it make cause dissonance in those willing to purchase,
because what they saw in the ad does not align with what they are actually getting –
causing them to either not purchase, or be dissatisfied once purchasing. None of these 3
outcomes are positive from the standpoint of our company or our customers (particularly
in the last 2 outcomes).
2. We will include captions whenever editing has been conducted.
I think it is morally responsible for out company to include some sort of caption at the
bottom of an advertisement whenever we digitally alter something in the photo (e.g. the
appearance of the model). This will let consumers know that the image is not a reality,
and has been modified; hopefully this will prevent any negative perceptions (e.g. I wish I
could be as skinny or have perfect skin like her). It would be even better if the statement
specified what was edited (the model’s skin complexion and smile), as well as stating that
the clothing has not been altered in any form.
3. We will limit the amount of editing we do on each photograph.
This policy will help ensure we do not become obsessive with our corrections and
overdue edits. This policy could be implemented in either of two ways (or quite possibly
a combination of the two). First, it could be on a number bases –we will edit a maximum
of 3 items in the photo. For example, we can edit the model’s makeup and teeth
whiteness as well as the shadow/lighting, or we can edit her thighs, hair color, and the
background. The second alternative would be to edit at most a certain percentage of the
photo/parts of the photo, such as 10%. For example, the model is only allowed to look
10% smaller/lighter in weight than what she actually is. Again, the hope is to achieve the
image we want, while still keeping it realistic, believable, and acceptable for our viewers
(“Hey, that model looks similar to me…I bet I would also look great in that top”).
4. We will not alter any images specifically targeted at people under the age of 18.
Adolescents under the age of 18 are often quite susceptible to what they view and
experience around them. What makes this age group more risky is the fact that their
cognitive abilities are still forming and they are not always fully capable of understanding
or processing modified images. All they see and comprehend is that the model is super
skinny (or buff, etc.), so why am I not like that also? These perceptions can lead to
unhealthy habits or behaviors.
Summary
Overall, this was a fun, interesting, and enlightening experience for me. Before this
assignment I knew that companies digitally altered photographs (especially of models in
magazines). What I didn’t realize is how easy these edits actually are. With essentially no
experience, I was able to carry out significant and (and mostly) convincing edits on two
separate photos. It’s almost scary to think of what professionals are capable of doing.
This experience has taught me to be more actively conscious and apprehensive of what I
see in print/digital media. I need to realize that images should not be taken at face value
and remind myself that Hollywood beauty is a construct –it does not exist in reality. In
addition, I need to be wary of products that claim things through imaged evidence that
seem too good to be true; those before and after photos probably aren’t all too real.