upworthy

photoshop

Photo by James Scott on Unsplash

The age of Instagram and the ubiquitousness of photo editing tools that can completely change the way you look—on a screen, at least—have made body image issues even trickier to navigate than they already were. While "perfect" model bodies used to be the Photoshopped domain of magazines and print ads, now anyone with a smartphone can manipulate their image to be more or less curvy, lean, muscular—whatever the "in" body type is at any given moment.

The problem is that young people see such images and then look in the mirror. Faced with the reality of a human body in all of its normal imperfections, it's easy to feel down on what you look like, especially when it doesn't match the (highly edited) ideal version of a human body your favorite influencer shares in her Insta feed.

At least one country is taking action on the issue in an attempt to assuage some of the damage such comparisons can cause. Norway has passed legislation that requires content creators to disclose when they've edited a photo. The addition to its existing Marketing Act states that any photo in which "a body's shape, size or skin has been changed by retouching or other manipulation" must be marked as edited. The reasoning behind the law is that undisclosed photo editing "plays on social insecurity, bad conscience, low self-esteem or contributes to body pressure."



According to The Hill, the law applies to advertisers as well as social media influencers and content creators.

The issue is definitely real. BBC reports that the majority of kids under 18 said in a UK survey that social media images were "extremely influential" on their body image. Only 5% of them said they wouldn't consider dieting or getting surgery to change their appearance. Other research has found that social media can be a positive influence on body image when people post body-positivity-oriented content, but most social media influence has a negative effect on body image.

All of this isn't surprising. But as much as Norway's requirement to disclose photo edits seems like a move in the right direction, it's not going to do much to solve the real problem.

I think most people, even young people, know that social media photos have been edited. It's not like it's a big secret anymore. If you are on Instagram, you know that people have put automatic filters on their photos or adjusted the exposure, brightness, contrast, etc. to create the most pleasing image. That's literally the way the app is used by almost everyone.

Filters and lighting adjustments aren't new, and they're not the real problem. Professional portrait photographers manipulate lighting and use filters all the time to make people look their best. We've all taken photos in bad lighting and wondered, "Yeesh, is that really what I look like?" No, it's not. Cameras don't capture exactly what our eyes perceive and the wrong lighting can make us look unnaturally bad. Adjusting lighting before and/or after taking a photo can actually give us a more true-to-life image, as long as it's not overdone.

Photoshopping bodies, though? That's a whole other story. Literally adding or taking away skin or fat to change a body shape should be noted. Making someone's eyes bigger or nose smaller or lips fuller—not to make the image look more like how they really look, but to create an unrealistic ideal—is worth disclosing. But even not all Photoshopping is bad. I'm not bothered if someone uses Photoshop to remove a big ol' zit from their face, for example, but I do care if they erase part of their cheek to make their face look slimmer. Blemishes happen, but they are temporary. They're not part of how you really look. But changing the shape of your face or body? That's what creates unrealistic expectations and body image issues when someone looks in the mirror.

Some might argue that makeup can do many of the same things photo editing can do and can also lead people to unrealistic beauty standards, though. So should makeup be disclosed too? Do we really expect people to only show raw, bare-skinned, no-make-up photos of themselves to be considered authentic? I don't think so, but the line for what needs to be disclosed is definitely a bit fuzzy.

Still, I don't think the issue is that people don't know that images are manipulated on social media. I think the real issue is the normalization of following influencers who constantly share photos of themselves all the time in the first place. For instance, the Kardashians have nearly a billion Instagram followers between them, and almost all they post are selfies in various states of undress. I don't think disclosing that their photos are edited would do anything to change the impact accounts like that have on their followers.

What we really need to do is teach young people that their value and worth aren't to be found in what they look like, either in real life or on social media. And neither is anyone else's, even if they've made millions off of their image as their "brand." Find your worth in what you're contributing that's making the world a better place, not in how many compliments your social media images get.

We also need to teach kids to analyze their own habits when it comes to who they choose to follow: If you're following people who share selfies to get attention or likes or beauty praise, why? What purpose does that serve? Is it actually serving you in any way other than to make you wish you looked different? Are there actually inspiring influencers who are making a real difference in the world that you could follow instead?

Norway's law might make a powerful statement, but I don't think it will solve the problem it's attempting to address. Appreciate the attempt to tackle body image issues, but the real problem goes deeper than any law or photo editing disclosure can go.

When Francisco saw an image of himself without tattoos, he couldn't help but smile.

"Damn," he said. "I haven't seen myself like that in years."

Francisco is a former gang member. His arms, face, and hands are covered in tattoos and gang symbols, permanent reminders of his former life.


But thanks to the photography and photo editing skills of Steven Burton, Francisco had the opportunity to see himself a changed man, the way he felt on the inside.

Francisco Flores. All photos and edited images by Steven Burton. Used with permission.

Francisco is just one of the men and women who took part in the innovative "Skin Deep" project.

Burton captured portraits of 28 former gang members and incarcerated men and women, and then he spent more than 400 hours in Photoshop digitally removing their tattoos.

Phillip Mendoza.

Burton was inspired by the work of Rev. Gregory J. Boyle, who many know as G-Dog.

Boyle, an ordained Catholic priest, is the founder and director of Homeboy Industries, a Los Angeles-based gang intervention, rehabilitation, and re-entry program. In addition to classes, employment counseling, substance abuse support, legal services, and mental health care, Homeboy Industries pays for laser tattoo removal treatment for 950 clients each month.

These tattoos are not only visible reminders of gang and prison life, but they can make it difficult for these men and women to find employment. To many, the tattoos — and the people underneath — are intimidating and scary. Legal or not, some companies and schools just aren't willing to take the risk.

David Williams.

But tattoo removal is a long and sometimes painful process. So Burton decided to create a digital solution.

After watching "G-Dog," a 2012 documentary on Boyle, Burton was inspired to use his photography and editing skills to show before and "after" photos to see how the men and women would react, but also to understand the impact tattoos have on people escaping gang life.

August Lopez.

Burton went straight to the source and talked to folks using the services at Homeboy Industries. Many were hesitant to take part in his project, as photographers hoping to shoot heavily tattooed former gang members are a dime a dozen. Burton had to build trust and prove he was there for the right reasons — not just as a photographer, but as someone willing to listen.

Samuel Gonzalez.

"I didn't go in with any preconceived ideas of what I was after," Burton said." I just wanted it to be honest and open, where they get to talk about their lives."

After he worked on the first four images and showed the participants, word quickly spread. For these people hoping to turn their lives around, Burton offered a priceless gift: a glimpse — even just on paper — of life without the gang.

Erin Echavarria.

Burton didn't just photograph the homeboys and homegirls. He listened to their stories too.

Each interview revealed personal and shocking details about life before and after the gang. Many suffered abuse or addiction prior to and during their years in gangs. They've witnessed unthinkable violence and are doing their best to start over, for themselves and their families.

"The cards they were dealt in the beginning really set the course for their life in the gang. It's never really been so much of a choice for a lot of these people," Burton said. "But what's beautiful about the people I talk to is that they've made the choice to leave the gang, and it's a difficult one."

Marcos Luna.

While deciding to leave is admirable, the transition isn't easy. Since "Skin Deep" began, at least two of Burton's subjects have been killed by police. Burton believes many are profiled because of their tattoos. Before you judge them, hear their stories.

"People can change their life," he said. "But because of the tattoos, who would know?"

That's why these images and stories are so important: Burton hopes to change the narrative around people in gangs and their tattoos.

Burton compiled his photos as well as interviews and stories from the men and women to create "Skin Deep: Looking Beyond the Tattoos," which was published in October 2017 thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign.

Now that he's making a profit, he's giving a portion of it back to the organization that made it possible — Homeboy Industries — and using the rest to continue helping others see themselves in a new light through digital means and real tattoo removal treatments.

Mario Lundes.

If you'd like to support these men and women as they chart a new course, start with kindness.

These men and women don't need your pity. They need a fair shot — with or without tattoos.

Support schools, businesses, and nonprofits working to give them a chance. And before you judge them, give them a chance yourself.  

Vinson Ramos.

We can all agree that Kerry Washington is gorgeous, right?

Photo by Frazer Harrison/Getty Images.

And we can all agree that sometimes magazines go a little (a lot) overboard when it comes to Photoshop, right?

For example, here's an issue of InStyle that had people up in arms over the apparent lightening of Washington's skin:


Well, it happened again: another Photoshop fail featuring Kerry Washington — but there's a twist.

Washington posted a picture of this week's AdWeek, featuring her on the cover, along with a really thoughtful note. It was honest, it was vulnerable, and it was filled with conflict.

\n\n

It was human.

\n\n

"I just felt weary," she wrote. "It felt strange to look at a picture of myself that is so different from what I look like when I look in the mirror. It's an unfortunate feeling." 

"So... You know me. I'm not one to be quiet about a magazine cover. I always celebrate it when a respected publication invites me to grace their pages. It's an honor. And a privilege. And ADWEEK is no exception. I love ADWEEK. It's a publication I appreciate. And learn from. I've long followed them on Twitter. And when they invited me to do a cover, I was excited and thrilled. And the truth is, I'm still excited. I'm proud of the article. And I like some of the inside images a great deal. But, I have to be honest... I was taken aback by the cover. 

\n\n

Look, I'm no stranger to Photoshopping. It happens a lot. In a way, we have become a society of picture adjusters - who doesn't love a filter?!? And I don't always take these adjustments to task but I have had the opportunity to address the impact of my altered image in the past and I think it's a valuable conversation. 

\n\n\n\n

Yesterday, however, I just felt weary. It felt strange to look at a picture of myself that is so different from what I look like when I look in the mirror. It's an unfortunate feeling. 

\n\n\n\n

That being said. You all have been very kind and supportive. Also, as I've said, I'm very proud of the article. 

\n\n\n\n

There are a few things we discussed in the interview that were left out. Things that are important to me (like: the importance of strong professional support and my awesome professional team) and I've been thinking about how to discuss those things with anyone who is interested, in an alternate forum. But until then... Grab this week's ADWEEK. Read it. I hope you enjoy it. And thank you for being patient with me while I figured out how to post this in a way that felt both celebratory and honest. 

\n\n\n\n

XOXOXOX"

What's notable about Washington's response, though, is its nuance. She's neither slamming the magazine nor praising it.

It's that nuance that's sometimes missing in our own lives. Just as there's often the debate of how we consume problematic media (or whether it's OK to consume at all), the Internet has created an atmosphere where the loudest and most polarizing voices on any end of a spectrum will be the only ones heard — this is true in politics, media, sports, video games, and just about anything else you can think of.

\n\n

Washington reminds us here that life is often so much more complicated than that. Was she disappointed in how the AdWeek cover turned out? Absolutely. Did she feel some things were missing from the interview she gave? Definitely. But did she "slam" AdWeek? Hardly. In fact, she still encourages her fans to go out and buy the issue, Photoshop fail and all.

Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images.

What Washington's doing here goes so much further than a reaction one way or the other: She's reclaiming the right to say she doesn't know how she feels about something.

"Thank you for being patient with me while I figured out how to post this in a way that felt both celebratory and honest," she writes at the end of her note.

\n\n

Celebratory and honest. Critical and supportive. Frustrated and proud.

\n\n

These are valid, complicated human feelings, and Kerry Washington is pretty amazing for showing the world that side of her.