Airbrush The "Flaws" Away, Everyone Is Perfect

The controversy behind airbrushing photos. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it right only sometimes and not other times? Who airbrushes and why? All very interesting questions and really there is no right or wrong answer I believe these questions can all be answered in many different ways of course depending on your opinion on this matter. However, for me I think airbrushing is justified in some situations and not others, it's OK sometimes and not so alright other times. There are three different situations that I'd like to touch upon and share my views about and see what others have to say.

1. airbrushing a photo in a mainstream news paper e.g. Toronto Star
2. airbrushing a photo for an advertisement
3. airbrushing a personal photo for facebook or something similar

For me airbrushing a photo in a mainstream paper is never justified. A credible source should never alter the truth, and a picture speaks a thousand words. By airbrushing photos I feel the news source is pretty much altering words. Airbrushing decreases credibility and trust because it is then simply not real, not the truth. It also would make me question if these news papers are changing pictures, even if it is small, what else could they be changing, what else is being fabricated? It is deceiving! If you are looking to be a reliable source it is important to not alter anything you put out. However, if it is something like lightening up the picture that I feel is OK because you are not "changing" the picture. But adding or removing someone from the picture, changing the background, etc. those things are not in any way, shape or form justified.

If you take a look at the picture below, the background (the American flags) was added to the photo. Though this is a simple change and some may feel no harm done I feel differently. To me this shows fake patriotism. It may give the person a better image then what was real. It is simply not the truth and its wrong.

Airbrushing in ads, another very controversal issue, especially for many feminist groups. This is pretty much a topic on its on, but I just wanted to say that airbrushing ads is not a new idea, its been around very long and I feel its the sole purpose to many young ladies feeling down and unsatisfied with themselves. Ads are consumed by everyone everwhere, they are what people real on to be the norm, yet they arent even real. Take the below picture for example

The before and after are nothing alike. There is no better word then FAKE to describe the after shot. I honestly feel again there is no justification here and those creating ads should be a little bit more responsible. What type of message does this send out? It makes me so mad to see these types of things. They are intentionally fooling the viewer and it shouldnt be allowed.

In the third situation, changing personal photos yourself or for your own purpose, I feel this is a little different. This is a personal choice. It is not intended to be in any dependable news outlet, its not supposed to be used as a consumption tool and it is not intended for the public it is personal. If for whatever reason you would like to alter your photos thats fine, yes you may be deciving people when they view it but you as a person do not have a responsibility to be truthful like ads from major brands or pictures in news papers.

Overall, I think that airbrushing photos has become very common with the access we have to technology and obviously the difference it makes. Before I used to appreciate pictures but now I am very skiptical, I feel like any published picture I see has been airbrushed in some way, and for me that makes the image lose its value. But this is just one more change that has come about in our information society and the obvious is there is no turning back. So I guess I just got to deal with it.