Hot Topic: I Like Photoshopped Images In Magazines

I don't know why but my Facebook news feed has suddenly been overtaken by feminists. The biggest problem, it seems, is the whole Photoshopping hoopla surrounding print media. This is no surprise to many, because Photoshopping is so prevalent in the media industry that people don't even bother to talk about it anymore. But seriously, I'm sick and tired of seeing this issue debated upon just because I am probably one of the few consumers who enjoy Photoshopped models within the pages of Vogue. 

Let's get to it:

The point many women are making is that photoshopped images of svelte women give young girls an unattainable beauty standard. It makes them unhappy with their bodies over an image that isn't even real. Consumers want 'real' women, which is a terrible thing to say because they're saying that conventionally beautiful women aren't 'real'. Yes they are. I have a classmate in university who looks so absolutely stunning that it's literally impossible for me to take my eyes off of her. Does that mean she is not a real woman just because she is the 1% of the female population?

The Photoshopping sometimes is drastic, but sometimes it's not. Some models are just obviously stunning, and yet people petition about how "no one is that perfect!" Really?

 

This Doutzen Kroes image wasn't altered that much and she looks great in both pictures. If they had published the first picture I would still be in awe. People who complain about 'too much Photoshopping' don't realize that most of the time, they don't Photoshop that much. The Dove beauty campaign used a normal-looking girl and thus the Photoshopping session was more elaborate. Most of the time (this is coming from someone who sits right behind a retoucher at work), they get rid of the lines and enhance the colors. No changing noses or jaws or lips. The Dove beauty campaign made people believe that the published pictures are 100% different than the actual model. That's rarely the case.

There have been plenty of petitions begging for magazines to use unretouched photos of models and celebrities, and one that I often buy is the Australian magazine Dolly. Printed on the corner of their pages are tiny icons that proclaim that this is a 'retouch-free zone' and even though many females are celebrating this big step towards a brighter future, I am not. They use "real" girls who are a size 10 and with curly hair and slightly wide noses but you know what? They're still nice to look at. None of them have stretch marks, purple scars, terrible acne or unattractively frizzy hair. They all look good even without retouching, and that makes me feel even more like shit.

At least with other magazines I know that they're Photoshopped and that no one looks this good, but with unretouched magazines, they use naturally beautiful girls who parade their good skin and nice teeth in front of my face, saying, "I don't need Photoshop because I'm already this goddamn gorgeous!"

I hate Dolly for that, it tears my self esteem knowing that there are girls who look that good sans the magical abilities of a retoucher. I would much rather see pictures of extremely Photoshopped women than seeing unretouched ones that look so flawless that I start to reevaluate my life decisions. 

And this doesn't stop in magazines, too. When people say, "those pictures are unattainable!" they're correct, but films don't lie. Instagram pictures don't lie. Seeing Victoria's Secret models swaying their hips on YouTube and admiring Barbara Palvin's flawless complexion on her Instagram makes me feel like utter crap sometimes. If people think that only Photoshopped images are ruinning our self esteem, they're wrong. What does ruin it are seeing natural beauties, not digitally enhanced breasts.

I might be the only one who like Photoshopped images. But maybe I'm not. But I would rather flip the pages of a magazine knowing that it has been incredibly enhanced than seeing an unretouched picture of a model, and knowing that a natural beauty like that actually exists.