Should Pho­to­shopped Im­ages Be La­belled?

In light of the grow­ing con­tro­ver­sies sur­round­ing ‘cor­rected’ pic­tures in the me­dia, two Cosmo girls de­bate the pros and cons of the tool.

Cosmopolitan (India) - - UPFRONT -


Manasa Madishetty, Pho­tog­ra­pher

“Pho­to­shop and tech­nol­ogy make ev­ery­thing look the way it does! I think you would be re­ally dis­ap­pointed if we started print­ing pic­tures with­out any edit­ing. I know that ev­ery de­bate on this leads to a dis­cus­sion on ‘body im­age’, but if you’ve got your ethics straight, Pho­to­shop can be your BFF. Post-pro­cess­ing is a method that was used in all medi­ums of pho­tog­ra­phy, even be­fore a soft­ware like Pho­to­shop was in­vented. It’s done to pump colours, even out tones, ad­just con­trast and sat­u­ra­tion, clean skin, etc. Pro­fes­sion­als nor­mally shoot in a raw for­mat which gives us the real im­age with real time colours. So, of course, we have to use an edit­ing soft­ware to process the pic­ture we need. As long as you’re not mak­ing an im­age look fake and ar­ti­fi­cial, Pho­to­shop is fine!”


La­vanya Sankaran, Author of

The Hope Fac­tory

“Ev­ery­one loves to look at ‘per­fect’ im­ages of women, men, pup­pies, ba­bies, flow­ers—we’re only hu­man af­ter all! It makes us happy. But then we mess it up by con­fus­ing th­ese pic­tures with re­al­ity, and start judg­ing our­selves and the peo­ple around us by the stan­dards that have been sub­con­sciously set by them. We find our­selves plagued with ques­tions like: why aren’t the flow­ers in my gar­den so dewy? Why doesn’t my man have a six­pack? Why aren’t my thighs so skinny? While the false­ness of pic­tures starts dur­ing the hours of ‘hair and make-up’, Pho­to­shop takes it to an­other level of un­re­al­ity. Per­haps in­stead of the ‘This im­age has been Pho­to­shopped!’ dis­claimer, the label just needs to say ‘Warn­ing: not real life’.”



Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.