OH NO! WE MUST PROTECT THE GIRL'S SELF ESTEEM FOR SHE IS ONLY A GIRL! I would like to ask you if you would feel so offended if the target audience were not teenage girls. What about middle-aged women? Or are you offended because of the dishonest aspect of photo editing? What if flattering lighting is used to make a girl's body looks slimmer, rather than postprocessing? Is that acceptable? Is it "more photographically pure"? I am a photographer and photo retouching artist. My target audience is not impressionable teenagers reading tasteless magazines, but rather paying clients, who want their headshots to present them in the best possible light. To this end, I use a combination of flattering light, short depth of field to accentuate the subject's focal point (e.g. eyes), and Photoshop. Lots and lots of Photoshop. I remove blemishes, change body shapes, removed fire extinguishers from photos that represent formative moments in people's lives, sometimes people ask me to make them look perfect. My paying client gets to specify exactly what they want from their photograph. From my point of view as a photographer, I do sometimes have to correct backdrop lighting, or smooth out lighting mistakes that came about because my time behind the lens for a given job was limited. Does that make me any less of a photographer? Do you believe that a "true photo" is an honest document of something in reality? That Photoshop is the equivalent of artistic fraud? Get a grip, people. We live in a post-post-modern era. Although the readership of these kinds of magazines are impressionable, they are also not stupid. Guns don't kill people. Photoshop does not cause low self esteem.

Add your comment:

Post as:


(or log in to post with your own username)

(optional)

(optional)