Monday, September 14, 2009

Photoshop of Horrors

I love when magazines, newspapers and advertisers get caught using Photoshop for nefarious ends. Photoshop really problematizes "the myth of photographic truth" given that any digital image is manipulable.

Exhibit A: Soldier in Basra, LA Times, March 2003

Original photos:
Published photo:

What does this composite photo connote that the other two don't? Why would it have been altered this way? What message is the photographer/publisher/PhotoShopper trying to get across?
More at this great article: 10 News Photos That Took Photoshop Too Far 
Example #2: Kim Karadashian in the (very classy) Complex magazine

First, let's just look at this image. What does the clothing, pose, lighting, makeup, etc. in the shots connote ? And, again, what ideological function does the alteration have? 
The issue here really isn't just that the images are digitally manipulated - we can take that as a given. The question is: WHY are these images digitally altered, and what does the way in which they are altered tell us about representation, myth, and ideology?

1 comment:

  1. The clothing connotes popular culture: such as sexyness because Kim is showing a lot of skin in her outfit and trendyness because of the type of outfit and edgy necklace she is wearing. Her overall pose is pretty seductive because she is leaning over showing off her boobs and also giving a sexual stare with her eyes.