This week’s text “Pandora’s Camera” explored the topic of photo manipulation whilst addressing the morality of it. The text used interesting and engaging examples such as Keira Knightley in ‘King Arthur’ and a Chanel perfume advertisement. Fontcuberta said that ‘Keira had to go for a more sensual, ‘feminine’ shape’. This is because we associate Keira with a more ‘athletic figure and elastic body’.
Fontcuberta also brings up the point, that it’s scandalous for photographers to edit their own photos, simply to make the composition more interesting, whilst in no way changing the focus or concept of the image. But it’s perfectly fine for publishers to manipulate photos so that they can sell more magazines, “justified on grounds of editorial policy”.
Fontcuberta says, Keira went on to do many campaigns, again for Chanel, but this time in just her birthday suit, Kiera posed with a jacket but no shirt with her right breast exposed. However, the photos that got published in this magazine were ‘missing a nipple’. The same photos had been published in many different magazines around the world that had the nipple in the photo.
“Corrective digital retouching or ‘adjustment’ has become standard practice, a kind of default post-production process that is taken for granted and passes without comment”. We’ve become so used to seeing doctored images, that it’s become normal to us.
From engaging within in this text I have an understanding of using Photoshop within retouching in photography which can be beneficial although sometimes it can go a bit too far. I feel this can create a lot of problems within the younger generation by having to live up to such standards. This also gives a false image of certain celebrities, changing their appearance to make them seem like ‘perfection’ which is done in a false way but also done for a professional use.
Leave a comment