Photoshop: Cropping out society’s insecurities

Photoshop can be someone's best friend.

A little blurring here and reshaping there along with some coloring, and all of those considered-to-be unappealing features just magically fade away, leaving a flawless version of oneself displayed in a photograph.  So, what's the problem?

Airbrushing and retouching images in the media has seemed to lead to more and more unrealistic portrayals of people. This topic has been popularly discussed regarding blame for poor body image, sexual exploitation and objectification, specifically with women, and, in extreme cases, eating disorders. The common claim is that these unrealistic images largely contribute to these issues among people, namely adolescents.

While it has been talked about in the past to completely ban the retouching of images in some countries, realistically that would drastically change, and in some instances even hurt, the industries that rely on the media to sell their products.  Instead, several politicians from European countries have discussed labeling any image produced if it has been edited.

However, there is a difference between simply editing the brightness or darkness of an image and drastically changing the nature of another. With this in mind, Dartmouth College computer science professor and digital image forensics researcher Hany Farid has proposed a five-step scale, which would produce a label of a rating of how much an image has been altered. The ratings would be calculated based on eight statistics regarding shape, color and texture.

Is all of this really necessary? We all should know by now that images in magazines are Photoshopped. With this in mind, is the media really to blame for individuals' personal body dissatisfaction? We need to all come to the realization that the media's intent is not to sabotage everyone's self-esteem. It is simply to sell a product or service to the people. Sure, a picture of a beautiful, thin girl in a little yellow polka-dot bikini may make a beautiful, overweight girl take a self-critical look at herself, but what is the difference between her looking at that picture and seeing another thin girl in person at the local pool?

If an ad's intent is to sell a tube of mascara, the model will most likely have fake eyelashes on. Furthermore, those lashes will have been computer-generated to exaggerate the length and volume. The images produced in the media are meant to be art, not a real representation of the human. People need to understand this and stop blaming the media for their own issues.

No one is expecting you or telling you to look a certain way. Only you can do that. If you are content with yourself the way you are then what you see in a magazine should not affect you. If you are displeased with yourself in any way, then simply be skeptical of what you see in that magazine, put it down and do something about it.

Think about it. If the media stopped Photoshopping images and they exposed every line, wrinkle, hair, fat roll, skin discoloration, etc., would it truly make you feel better about your own imperfections? Does it really take seeing flaws in others to make you feel okay for having yours? Deep down, whatever is displeasing you about yourself will still be there with the presence of edited images or not.

As far as Photoshopped images coming with a warning label, it might be a good compromise. No one will be able to blame the media anymore on society's body image with a stamp staring viewers in the face labeling the images as altered. The industries will still be able to effectively sell their products. Everyone can then live in peace.

 For those still looking for an excuse for their own insecurities, maybe they will be forced to eventually learn to accept themselves and live comfortably in their own skin. If they can't accept themselves the way they are, there are plenty of products, methods, and information out there to assist them in fixing whatever it is they are unhappy with.