Photoshopping can be used to create images which could not exist in real life, while fooling the eye into thinking that it\u2019s indeed a rare sample of rarefied reality. The famous Kate Upton Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition cover photograph is an excellent example.
\n![\"mirror](\"https:\/\/www.benchmarkemail.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/mirror-modeling.jpg\")
\nThe buxom Ms. Upton\u2019s bikini bottom was Photoshopped into a mere thin line which belied anatomical feasibility, but not so much so that it kept the magazine from selling well over five million copies. Countless individuals all over the planet have ogled the image without the slightest consideration that Ms. Upton would have had to have her pelvic basin surgically reconfigured. However, Photoshopping is not limited to centerfold images but to virtually every facet of online marketing photography, from removing that nasty zit from the CEO\u2019s face to making that cheap scrawny burger look like it contains more meat than an English Pub\u2019s Sunday Baron Of Beef Roast.<\/p>\n
Blatant Examples of Image Dishonesty<\/strong><\/p>\n The prime consideration of Photoshopping is not so much technical as it is ethical. Surely any moderately adept computer user can fire up Adobe CS6 and thoroughly manipulate an image in order to obtain results commensurate with their skill and experience in the software, but does that action result in a blatant example of image dishonesty? The advent of social media in marketing has brought with it the absolute necessity to maintain an atmosphere of trust, responsibility and honesty in all dealings with the customer, so is that policy violated by Photoshopping a bauble to seem sparklier or a model to look skinnier and taller?<\/p>\n Violation of Photographic Ethics<\/strong><\/p>\n No one would argue with the act of using Photoshop for correction of photographic artifacts or technical flaws, such as removing a reflection of a stray studio light or a lens flare (although Star Trek director JJ Abrams might argue with you on that point). The question of the violation of photographic ethics arises when the fundamental qualities of the image are changed to the point where they no longer adhere to the reality of the original subject itself.<\/p>\n Offending Marketers Apologize\u2026 then Repeat<\/strong><\/p>\n When the Taiwanese newspaper Liberty Times<\/em> digitally removed a rival publisher from a photo of a group of dignitaries welcoming Pope Benedict XVI they obviously trashed their journalistic ethics, and online marketers have to comprehend that they are also threatening their own reputation. Clothing chain Ann Taylor has been repeatedly \u201ccaught\u201d removing dozens of pounds from the photos of their models\u2019 anatomies and while they apologize each time, that doesn\u2019t stop them from continuing the practice\u2026 and Ralph Lauren is equally guilty. L\u2019Oreal has whitened Beyonce to Caucasianism, Oil of Olay has erased thirty years of wrinkles from Twiggy\u2019s face, and Touchstone Pictures turned the boyish Keira Knightley into a D-Cup in the promo images for the movie King Arthur<\/em>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Photoshop is Adobe\u2019s perennial market leading image manipulation software and it is effectively universal among photographic professionals as well as amateurs. It is so popular that the name of the software itself has become a verb similar to conducting a search engine query is now \u201cto Google.\u201d \u201cTo Photoshop\u201d is to manipulate any given image…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":139,"featured_media":2762,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2171],"tags":[18,109,296,1667,1670,1673],"class_list":["post-2761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-beyond","tag-benchmark","tag-marketing","tag-business","tag-image","tag-photography","tag-series"],"yoast_head":"\n