Around 1860 (no typing error!) there was a heavy debate in the artistic and photographic community whether photography was not too real (photographs showed a kind of brutal reality that was too much for sensitive and educated eyes). Photographs of real women whose shape did not conform to Idealist norms in particular were derided. This balancing act between a realistic representation and an idealist fantasy has haunted photography since that moment. It has been claimed that Barnack did not want his camera and lenses to be too exact in its depiction of reality because of this sensitivity. The liberty of the painter to create every idealized form at will contrasted with the constraints of the photographer who had to cope with the indiscriminate recording of the scene before the camera lens.
It is a totally worn-out discussion to state that a photographer chooses the standpoint, lighting condition and moment of exposure and has the same impressionist urges as a painter. In particular the American literature is full of references to Foucault and Barthes to explain the post-modernist and post-structuralist approaches to the photographic image.
The artists in the 1860s were very confident and had a clear view of what was acceptable for the public eye. The ideal shapes of classical antiquity was the norm and should be the standard self-image of any person. And the sitters of those days wanted to look like the ideal.
Now Panasonic has introduced a new camera with a beauty retouch mode. You take pictures of your friend and do not like a too realistic representation: then the camera helps you to get an ideal picture. Photoshop can do the same and there is a host of other programs, like Portrait Professional, that accomplish even more in less time. You can give your grandmother a baby face with one click!
Current studies show that the actual generation of kids do not believe what they see on a photograph, because they assume that the picture or faked or at least retouched. More than 10% of school pictures are retouched and show the kid in a better shape than it has in reality. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the difference between showing what is it and how you want to see it is not trivial.
The same testers who complain that a certain lens does not resolve more than 2000 lp/ph (with the capability of showing facial defects) rejoice at the inclusion of retouch software in the camera that is designed to remove wrinkles that the lens is designed to depict.
You cannot claim that this trend is caused by Photoshop, but there is no denial that Photoshop makes it possible and that many persons use the program to enhance the image and the looks of a person. Photographs have always been used to present the person from its best possible angle and profile (the whole portrait industry depends on this desire), but there is a thin but important line between glamorizing and manipulation. The artists in the 1860s understood this and produced realistic paintings and impressionist photographs. Now it has been claimed that feminists are the best photoshoppers in America.
Current Leica lenses are famous for their recording capabilities of details and tones of the scene. And Leica buyers would not like to get less performance. But many Leica users now employ Photoshop to 'improve' their images and produce a fantasy world with characteristics far beyond what the lens can reproduce.
The photographer has a responsibility here: the new Panasonic camera adjusts the pictures to create an image that the person has (or wants to have) of him/herself. We just have too much self-confidence, not less.
The 1860s have a lesson for the 2010s!