A recent paper reported clear links between negative body image and retouched digital images in advertising and on social media. So is labeling retouched images the answer?
On August 2, 2022, the UK’s Health & Social Care Committee published a report that focused on the impact of body image on mental and physical health.
The report had some alarming findings – and, unsurprisingly, found that retouched digital images were recognized as a driver of negative body image. Here, we look at the broader findings of the report, the recommendations it makes, the role played by digital images in particular, and the ways in which the issue could be mitigated.
What is negative body image?
Negative body image refers to a person’s dissatisfaction with the way their body looks. This could be down to its size, for example, its shape, or its general appearance.
Looking in the mirror and feeling like you could lose a few pounds may be dismissed as a harmless passing thought by many. But in such a hyper-connected world that is dominated by unregulated digital media, negative body image has the potential to develop into a more serious issue.
For example, it has been linked to damaging physical and mental disorders, such as body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and depression.
What were the findings of the report?
The Health & Social Care Committee’s paper reported a number of concerning statistics around body image and mental health.
A 2019 study by the Mental Health Foundation, for example, found that 20% of adults felt shame, 34% felt down or low, and 19% felt disgusted by their body image at some point in the preceding year. The same study found that 13% of adults felt suicidal thoughts as a result of negative body image.
Furthermore, it was found that 21% of adults cited images used in advertising as a cause of negative body image, while 40% of teenagers said their body image issues were caused by images on social media.
In this article, our main focus is on sections 61-63 of the report, which concentrate on the potential link between negative body image and retouched digital images used in advertising and social media. The report states:
“We believe that more needs to be done in regard to the regulation of digitally altered images for advertising and social media use. We heard evidence about the potential harm from online content that promotes an idealized, often doctored and unrealistic, body image and the link to developing low self-esteem and related mental health conditions.”
The report goes on to recommend that specific action is taken, calling for new research into the impact of social media on body image dissatisfaction. It emphasizes the need to better equip new generations with skills such as critical thinking and image appraisal that can help them recognize when an image has been retouched.
It also calls for the clear labeling of retouched commercial images. “We believe the Government should introduce legislation that ensures commercial images are labeled with a logo where any part of the body,” it says, “including its proportions and skin tone, are digitally altered.”
This is a practice already adopted in Norway with the passing of a new law in 2021 that requires content creators to “ensure that the advertisement in which the shape, size or skin of a body has been changed by retouching or other manipulation must be marked.”
What role do digital images play in fueling negative body image?
With so much different content hitting us from so many different angles today, there are countless ways retouched digital images can find their way into our lives and contribute to negative body image.
However, the Health & Social Care Committee’s report quotes a number of individuals who cite social media as playing a significant role. This view is backed up by a study from Science Direct, which found that social networking is positively related to body image concerns.
With a reported 4.7 billion social media users worldwide spending an average of 2hrs 29min a day on these networks, is the connection really a surprise?
Social media influencers in particular have faced criticism for their role in this in recent years, leading to body-positive campaigns like the Dove Real Beauty Pledge and hashtags like #bodypositive and #nofilter, which have helped to put a greater focus on self-esteem and authenticity.
However, while this greater responsibility around commercial content has helped to raise awareness, research shows that the biggest driver of negative body image is actually content from friends and acquaintances.
This is concerning because, while commercial content can be regulated by consumer-protection bodies such as the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the USA’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC), personal content from friends and connections is much harder to control.
What defines a retouched image?
The idea of labeling an image to indicate it has been retouched – as the Health and Social Care Committee’s paper suggests – is certainly the right sentiment. The only problem is that defining a ‘retouched’ image is harder than it sounds.
It wasn’t long ago that many of us would regard image retouching as a practice reserved for professionals in expensive photo-editing suites, airbrushing images of supermodels on national magazine covers and high-level advertising campaigns.
Today, however, retouching images is easy and often free through software programs and countless apps that can do anything from adding eye shadow to completely reshaping facial features. These apps are simple to use and, in many cases, the technology is so advanced that it can be difficult for the untrained eye to spot.
Apps such as these are the more extreme examples of image retouching being used to deliberately alter a subject’s physical appearance, but there are many other less obvious and arguably less damaging ways to change the appearance of an image. So where do you draw the line?
For example, professional portrait photographers often spend a significant amount of time and effort using image-editing software to ensure their photographs look their best. While they may not change the physical appearance of the subject, it is likely they will make tweaks to contrast or color to enhance the overall result. So should these images be flagged as being retouched?
Even digital images straight out of the camera with no filters or subsequent editing cannot be described as truly authentic due to the processing that happens in-camera between the sensor capturing the scene and the image file being created.
Then there is the question of the hardware that is used. A lens with a moderately long focal length and a wide aperture that can achieve a shallow depth-of-field is usually the most flattering equipment setup for portraiture. Granted, this is not retouching, but could be considered a form of image manipulation. Should this also be taken into consideration?
With so many ways to alter an image, and degrees to which it can be manipulated, what is the answer?
Potential solutions
Labeling images as one or the other is a step in the right direction. But with so much grey area surrounding what constitutes a ‘retouched’ image, the more useful option would be to provide complete transparency over what edits have been made.
This can already be achieved with technology such as the Content Authenticity Initiative (CAI), which is currently in development. By adopting CAI technology, it is possible to automatically attach tamper-evident image provenance data to a digital image in-camera at the time of its capture, such as date, location, author, and technical information.
Furthermore, CAI can track and record every edit that is made to a digital image throughout its lifetime, from simple contrast adjustments or filters right up to compositing and more advanced image editing. It is even possible to view thumbnails of the image before and after edits were made.
Rather than having to determine whether or not each and every image has been retouched, this approach provides the user with all the information they need to make their own decision on the trustworthiness of what they see.
Learn more: Content Authenticity Initiative: What you need to know
Image-streaming technology, which has been used to display the images in the body of this article, can also be useful here.
This method of publishing images online provides built-in captions for context; permanent attribution and theft deterrents for security; and interactive features like Hyper Zoom and full-screen viewing for higher engagement. A demo that incorporates both systems has also been developed.
Conclusion
While some images used for advertising or posted on social media can be problematic, deciding on and labeling retouched images is a complicated and potentially time-consuming process that could be difficult to implement effectively.
By adopting the technologies mentioned above, social media platforms could ensure transparency when it comes to image editing and manipulation, and address some of the issues they have had to grapple with in recent years around negative body image.
They could lead the way in creating safe havens for digital imaging in which users can make their own decisions on the authenticity of the content they are viewing, and this could in turn pave the way for a whole new digital image ecosystem for the wider web in which content can once again be trusted.
SmartFrame’s image-streaming technology is revolutionizing online image display for content owners, publishers, and advertisers
Subscribe to our newsletter
Get the latest articles and updates delivered straight to your inbox