Photoshopped images in advertising and on retail websites are often criticized for over-manipulation, with headlines affixed to these targeted critiques usually involving the word “fail.” The problem is at its worst when retail marketers change images of women’s bodies to an extent that many deem socially unacceptable, and even destructive.

What is a Photoshop “fail?"

There are all kinds examples of marketing images that are detached from reality. Retouching and adding unrealistic elements are routine in ads for everything from cars and jewelry to food and drink. 

Clearly, retailers want to project the best look for their products. But, when it comes to apparel ads or product shots on websites, the practice is increasingly seen as contributing to a social problem that pushes women and young girls to accept unrealistic expectations of their own bodies. Men, too, are increasingly seen as victims of expectations created by advertising. 

The practice is ripe for parody, something that was beautifully accomplished last year by North Carolina photographer Anna Hill. 

Not good press

Consumers aren’t responding well to that, and calling out "Photoshop fails" has become a routine media practice. Buzzfeed and Jezebel are making it an art form. Jezebel, in a different take, has simply shown how vastly different manipulated images are in advertising, even when they don’t “fail.” 

The subjects of Photoshopped images have had their say, as well. Hip-hop star Nicki Minaj took to social media to complain about her image as presented by ESPN Magazine, saying, "I love my personal unretouched photos where my forehead doesn't mysteriously grow in length.” Similarly, teen pop sensation Lorde in April tweeted that among the results of a recent photo shoot was a new nose. 

But most of the media's ire is reserved for manipulations that are so egregious that the human body is nearly unrecognizable. When Target made news with a badly manipulated photo of a junior-sized swimsuit model, talk show host Ellen DeGeneres invited her on TV to demonstrate that her arm was not, in fact, as ludicrously long as the photo showed.

This is not good press.

Swearing off image manipulation

A number of companies have attempted to eschew image manipulation. American Eagle’s Aerie lingerie line promoted an "Aerie Real" campaign with still-skinny models who nevertheless showed birthmarks, tattoos, moles, folds of skin, and other “imperfections” left alone. One model in that campaign, Amber Tolliver, endorsed the effort even though she said she appreciates the ability of photo-editing to take away her own perceived flaws. But, she told Elle magazine,​ it does too often go too far and can even affect her own self-esteem.

'It was like I was made into a Barbie," she said, saying editors have trimmed her ribcage, waist, and legs, made her legs and neck longer, and raised her cheekbones. "To recreate a human being using a computer process is a bit of an attack on who you naturally are. Like, if I'm not good enough or if I'm not beautiful enough, then why'd you book me?" she said.

Dove’s 10-year-old “Real Beauty” campaign has had mixed results in part because, critics said, the campaign still promoted a corporate and sometimes unrealistic view of beauty.

But Verily magazine is showing that images can project beauty and even sell products without heavy changes. "We never alter the body or face structure of our models with Photoshop," promises the magazine's Photoshop policy. "We firmly believe that the unique features of women — be it crows feet, freckles, or a less-than-rock-hard body — contribute to their beauty and therefore don’t need to be removed or changed."

Will there be a law?

The practice of deceptive manipulation using tools like Photoshop has caught the attention of lawmakers.

U.S. Representatives Ileana Ros-Lethinen (R-FL) and Democratic Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) in April introduced a truth-in-advertising bill aimed at regulating photo manipulation in advertising. While there is support for the bill, the legislation may not be specific enough to guide either regulators or advertisers about what would be acceptable under the law.

The possibilities of image manipulation

In some ways, these Photoshop fails do fail because they are attempting to present a “real” picture of an impossible reality. But ads that are rooted in fantasy are more likely to be accepted as artistic even when they are clearly manipulated. Therefore they never garner the kind of criticism that an ad does when it tries to pass off an untrue image as the real thing. 

Swedish photographer and self-described re-touch artist Erik Johansson does a lot of advertising work, including the creation of heavily manipulated images. He is very up front about his work -- so much so that he recently set up a van and made instant bus-stop ads with photos taken on the spot of people waiting there.

His lively Photoshop experiment shows that the photo-editing program has a lot of possibilities for successful customer interaction, as long as they can see the man behind the digital curtain.