The History of Photo-Manipulation

Modern photography is plagued with manipulation. There are several pieces of software available on the global market for everyone from the pro photographer right down to the novice to use. With all the technological advances making it easier to 'correct' a photograph how can we, as the viewer, be sure that what we are seeing is real? and how does this modern culture of creating an 'ideal' image effect our perception of beauty?

The first photograph was created in 1814. It wasn't long before manipulation was invented, in the 1860's. One of the first images to be manipulated was an iconic portrait of US president Abraham Lincoln. (Below)

Although it may seem natural, the image above is not solely of Lincoln. The head of the portrait shows Lincoln himself and is a separate photo to that of the body, depicting John Calhoun. This shows that as early as the 1860's, photo-manipulation was being used to make individuals look more attractive in photographs.

Photo-manipulation wasn't a trend that went rapidly out of fashion, in fact the opposite is true. In 1930 Stalin was hiring people to use airbrush methods on photographs of himself to remove his enemies from the images. For Example see below.

As you can see here, the less important man has been removed from the frame, and the main focus of the image has been transferred to Stalin. 

By 1982 digital photo-manipulation was underway and one of the most iconic examples of this is the National Geographic magazine cover, below. 

The cover story was about Egypt and the Great Pyramid of Giza was digitally moved to fit the magazines vertical layout.  National Geographic, a magazine about nature was made to apologise for its unnatural image and they released the following statement "We no longer use that technology to manipulate elements in a photo simply to achieve a more compelling graphic effect. We regarded that afterwards as a mistake, and we would not repeat that mistake today."

In August 1989 when publishers started digitally placing the head of a person on the body of a model. Photographs were even posed intentionally for this purpose. These images were intended for the covers of magazines to make celebrities look more attractive. This kind of manipulation can sometimes still take place today.

In june 1994, a photographer's work was no longer secure, as it was under threat of being 'stolen' then edited to make a new image which another photographer or publisher could claim as their own work. This was a manipulation breakthrough and big titles and corporations such as 'Time' magazine, 'Newsweek' and the NBC, were found guilty of such crimes against photography and imaging. 

In September 2000, photo-manipulation was being used to create a more diverse culture in photographs. 

The university of Wisconsin edited a photograph on one of their leaflet covers to include a black student. The original image showed only white football fans and was taken in 1993. The Photo of the black student was taken in 1994 and they were merged in 2003. The university claimed they had spent all summer looking for culturally diverse images of their students but had no luck. 

In January 2003, actress Kate Winslet appeared on the cover of GQ magazine. The cover photograph, however had been edited using state of the art modern software. Kate had been made thinner. She said; "I don't look like that and more importantly I don't desire to look like that." She also called the re-touching  "excessive". 


Photo-manipulation is also widely used in the film industry to enlarge or shrink certain parts of actors or actress' to suit. For example, the Harry Potter 'poster' below was used by IMAX cinemas. The breasts of Actress Emma Watson have been digitally enlarged to make her more attractive. It was later revealed that this wasn't even an official poster, how the IMAX obtained it is as yet unknown. 

In July 2007 Redbook magazine was accused of 'contributing to the unattainable body image created by digital retouching'. When they published a heavily airbrushed and retouched image of Faith Hill on one of their covers. Redbook defended themselves by saying their retouching was in line with the 'industry standard'. Sadly this kind of thing still happens today, despite the fact its about time this standard was changed. The cover image can be seen below. 

Sometimes extensive manipulation can lead to certain photographs and advertising campaigns being banned by countries. The campaign below was banned in the UK in December 2009 because the model, Twiggy, had been too highly airbrushed around the eyes. The advertising standards agency thought this was misleading as the advert was promoting eye-cream. Olay corrected this mistake and re-released the campaign using an image 'without any retouching in the eye area'. 

Feminine Beauty

Photo-manipulation has had a much deeper impact on the female population, its not just skin-deep. 
Subconsciously women are being encouraged to dress a certain way, do their hair or make-up to suit trends, and diet, seemingly pointlessly. Women feel the need to do such things to fit in with society. If the magazine images were removed from public view, there is a chance that women would be free to live as they please and look how they want. 


There is no such thing as true natural beauty anymore. Natural beauty is that of being happy in your own skin, happy enough to step out each morning wearing no make-up and whatever you want, not the latest fashions. 


Photo-manipulation puts such pressure on being thin and beautiful that women go to extreme lengths, even cosmetic surgery. The results don't even make the woman feel any better about herself, so why bother? We are all trying to live up to a fake reality, thinking we wont be accepted unless we look like that girl on the cover of this months glossy. However how can we ever achieve what isnt real in the first place.

In many cases manipulating photographs is not necessary. For example, above the models waist has been shrunk, her breasts enlarged, her tan enhanced, her eyes moved and the background and colours changed, all to make her look more beautiful. But truthfully it makes no difference. The Model is still just as beautiful. If anything the image on the right doesn't look better, the colour and lighting change make the model look worse, as if she were plastic and fake. 


Photography has the power to influence how people live their day-to-day lives. Maybe photographers should use this power more positively. 

Opinions

To get a more accurate scope on photo-manipulation and how people feel about it, it is important to take a look at the opinions of others.

Dan Heller, Photojournalist:

"It's important to realize one fact about photography (in any its forms, film and/or digital): to get a photo to render real life, one must do a certain amount of manipulation. The reason is a simple matter of science: the technical limitations in film, digital sensors, scanners, photo paper, and even computer monitors, mean that reproduced images cannot match the range or quality of light that nature produces in real life. Therefore, it becomes the burdensome task of the photographer to work within technical limitations to render something that approximates light. And, this is where the tricky stuff lies and where people part on their opinions."

"So, answer the question, already: "What is pure photography? It just keeps getting more complicated, doesn't it? People refer to it as pictures that most accurately convey what the scene really looked like, as if you were standing there alongside the photographer. That's more about photo "journalism" a single aspect of the much wider spectrum of photographic expressions. But, even in photojournalism, "distorting the truth" is what photography is all about. One man's truth is another man's "spin."Ok, so instead of asking "what is pure photography?", let's ask the more pertinent question:

What exact point along that spectrum of distortion lies the division between an acceptable representation of reality and an unacceptable distortion of truth?"

"Alteration of an image is one thing; lying is another. Granted, there may be a grey line, and perhaps the industry is trying to portray the most conservative face so as to appease the luddites within our culture. But in the long run, if they do not handle this well, it could make the industry itself less credible in the long run. Unless and until they administer rules that address the real issues of photographic integrity, the industry will not be perceived to be credible in its own self-policing."


Dan Heller agrees with photo-manipulation. His opinions above were taken from his essay; 'What is 'pure' photography?' However Dan is talking about a slightly different form of photo-manipulation. His images need to be edited so they stand out to newspapers and magazines. So lets forget about photo-manipulation in the context of 'natural beauty' for a while and look at photo-manipulation as a whole. As Dan says, there is a grey area between enhancing an image and making it into something new and fake. At what point does manipulation turn the photograph into a new image and something that is deemed 'fake'?


Many people argue that the moment an image is opened in photoshop, or other image editing software, and the brush touches the image, or the colours are enhanced, you have created a completely new image. A 'fake' image that does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation in which the photograph was taken. However, as a photographer I disagree with this opinion. I agree with photo-manipulation to a certain extent. I agree to enhancing the colours of an image to make it look more like the lighting conditions in which the photograph was taken. I agree with selective cropping, it still shows the original scene but just a certain area of it. I also agree with creative manipulation, something that is obviously not real. For example the image below. 

Images like this are about photography as an art form, such creative manipulation should be 'allowed' and not deemed 'fake'. However, as you can see in the image above, models are still being airbrushed. This is something i do not agree with. If manipulation is being used in such a way that it shapes our society and the way we choose to look, or any such personal elements, other than passive advertising, I think this is wrong. Photographers should not have the power to transform a person. It is not real, it is not true and 90% of the time it is not realistic, yet people still aspire to be like those models. 

Conclusion

To conclude I think each magazine, advertising agency and ultimately photographer, needs to be a little more conscious about their effect on society, especially peoples image within it, and how photo-manipulation has the power to change everybody.


An ideal solution would be to revert to 'naturalism' (the art of not faking images by means of posing, lighting re-touching etc. What you see is what you get.) in photography and digital imaging. However ideal doesn't mean realistic. In a realistic situation, standards should be placed limiting photo-manipulation. These standards exist today, but are not enforced enough and are certainly not strict enough to allow images like the ones below to continue to be produced. What king of 'reality' is this? The model looks like a china doll! Is this what we want the younger generation to aspire to?

Personally I use as little manipulation as possible on my images. Mostly I do not use it at all. When I manipulate my own images it is creatively, for example using the history brush tool in photoshop. It is not airbrushing.


If someone is pretty enough to be a model they should not need re-touching. If they need re-toucing they are clearly not pretty enough to be a model. If there was no such thing as the extremely synthetic 'reality' of todays images, then everyone should be pretty enough to be a model. Something for you to think about.

Afterthought

These are some of my own photographs from the shoot I did alongside this essay. I have not used excessive re-touching on these images. These photographs are 100% natural. In my opinion photographs in this style would be much better in magazines than the airbrushed 'reality' that we see today. More natural images would give women the confidence to be happy in their own skin. Instead women feel pressured to cover-up with make-up, to perfect every single flaw, before going out. This is summed up by 'Peter's Almanac' - "Always remember that true beauty comes from within, from within bottles, jars compacts and tubes." However I think more women should share the view of Havelock Ellis; "The absence of flaw in beauty, is itself a flaw".