Emma Stydahar and companions at a mock fashion show protesting Teen Vogue’s model retouching.

No one can argue that creating the perfect atmosphere, timing, lighting, movement, etc. is an easy task. Photographers, creative directors, set designers and producers all work the best they can with what naturally comes by. That includes making sure outdoor photos aren’t darkened from a cloud-covered sun, or that the wind makes a model’s scarf move just slightly, not obstructing any faces. Editors, photographers, models, art directors and more all want the perfect shot, spread, cover and publication. In the digital age, obtaining that perfection has become more than easy- but at a cost.

In the last year there has been a large elephant in the fashion magazine world associated with the absurd Photoshop techniques by their editors. The digital altering of covers and print ads grew from just removing wild flyaway hairs to drastic tampering with the model’s and celebrity’s physiological features. It’s not hard to find an example of this from numerous publications in the last year, including Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan, and Elle, even all the way to Teen Vogue and Seventeen magazines. Some examples of changes made in many ads and photos include shrinking of waist, thigh and arm sizes, enhancing breasts, altering the clothing, and touching up features such as crows feet and blemishes. These were seen by the editor and advertisers as necessary and romanticized portrayals of quality ads. However, it is being seen my aspiring models, fashion designers, photographers, and consumers as a rude distortion of reality.

Because of worldwide objection and protests to these practices, many retailers and publications have vowed to discontinue outrageous retouching and enhancements, which includes a recent plea by Seventeen magazine and Vogue on their model requirements and editing performances. Which is, to me, the proper and responsible action to take, and one that many more represented above should adopt. Activist organizations have also taken center stage in lobbying these companies to change their policies, such as Spark a Movement, a group focused on challenging the sexualization of girls and women.

Photoshoping and altering not only deceives consumers about the style of their future purchases, but has a traumatic negative effect on young women and teen girls across the nation and the world. It is no lie that young women under the age of 25 are the largest demographic to endure disorders and negative self esteem issues. Ironically, the same demographic of most subscribers and readers to leading fashion magazines caught in the act of digitally altering their models. It is dishonest and potentially harmful for these editors, photographers and advertisers to purposefully engage in these practices.  I know that as a monthly reader of Teen Vogue and Seventeen in high school, seeing young girls my age look so glamorous effected my outlook a bit.

I understand the other side to the story too, an argument that the clients, editors and advertisers are essentially a business built on producing a profit, and that can be effected if they don’t have the sexy, glamorous appreciation and admiration from readers and viewers. However, there is a large difference between “enhancing” to sell a product and “manipulation” to a point of no recognition. Some editors, such as Christine Leiritz from French Marie Claire, have made the assertion that their readers “are not idiots,” and can safely view unrealistic images without having negative consequences. My response? Every women, young or old, takes everything they hear and see into consideration, specifically when it comes to their self-image and self-evaluations. We may not all be idiots, but we aren’t blind either.