Myspace Mayhem

     I'd like to close this semester long blog off on a light note. I've also realized over the course of this assignment that I am just a sucker for that whole 'self marketing' schtick we do online. With that in mind I would like to dissect what I would consider the hallmark of this decade; "The Myspace Pic"

     I think the term has since been a bit supplanted by 'Facebook/Profile pic' or it's bastard cousin 'prof pixz!!1! XD' but at it's heart it has not changed much. I think it could be boiled down in the following fashion:

     ‘Profile Pix’; n. Self-portraits taken without the assistance of a tripod or camera timer, designed for use on social networking websites. Photos are usually taken from a high angle, and usually involve the subject making a face or throwing up a hand gesture with the free hand (when not holding a red plastic party cup.)

Laugh all you want, but you're guilty of it, too. I certainly am, and I even own a tripod!

     Why do we as humans with access to some awesome technology (one being the auto timed exposure on cameras) go time and again back to this?

The drawbacks are obvious in that it isn't a very good photo, with advantages being the ability to take it anywhere, anytime. Are they flattering pictures? Informal undertaken by online dating website OKCupid seems to indicate, yes.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-4-big-myths-of-profile-pictures/

     There are two reasons I would like to point out as to the Myspace Pic's popularity, one pretty logical, the other my (somewhat esoteric) opinion on the subject.

 It's all in the angles;

     That slight angle (less that 45 degrees) is pretty flattering to most human faces. Emphasis is put on the eyes, and drawn away from the chin and neck. This has obvious advantages, as in our society of stick thin models there has been an increase of disgust in that little patch of skin most people have under their chin.

Look at how I am willing to embarrass myself for you, readers!

     Working at the photographer's, that was by far the most common request "Get rid of my double chin!" when I would never even call it that. Maybe 1.3 chins. Whatever the case, pretty unavoidable for all but the super slender (or those blessed with a strong jawline.) This hides it, no Photoshop required.

Photo from Julie Sterling's Photography Blog. Note the two on the bottom left.
http://juliesterling.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/retail-portraiture/

     Secondly, light plays an important role. Most lights indoors come from directly overhead, which causes shadows on the face, under the eyes and nose, which are not usually seen as desirable. Tilting the head up brings the light more 'forward' and fills in those areas where shadows like to form.

     The social aspects are a different matter. The angle of a photo communicates a lot about power. The lens is the eye that the viewer looks through at the subject. Photographing from below (or even lighting from below) can give the subject an aggressive, threatening feeling. (Many animals react to direct sustained gaze as a threat, and I don't believe we've totally outgrown that one yet, either.) Let's use my favorite actor/director/glorious drunk Orson Welles to illustrate!

High angle shot (with Vermeer lighting, no less.) Myspace pics before they were cool.

Slight low angle, but notice the low lighting. Not nearly so friendly.

Extreme low angle.

      Using an angle slightly above, while maybe not  going so far as making the subject appear submissive, rather invites the viewer to look, as opposed to communicating a vague threat to their subconscious brain.

     Because, after all, isn't social networking all about asking people to look?

When what you say is what you don't say: Newsworthiness

     What sorts of images come to mind when you think of the homeless in America? Depending on where you’ve lived, you may have met them first hand, or your perception may come from their depiction in media. I was curious as to how the media (news, specifically) treat homeless Americans. I read a couple of articles, all interesting, but one in particular caught my attention. Edward Erikson wrote “The Representation of Homelessness in the Nightly News” for a peer journal in 2006. Despite its age, I thought his interpretation of the situation was very interesting.

     According to Erikson in his article "The Representation of Homelessness in the Nightly News" the number of homeless Americans is growing with every year, totaling something like 3 million by 2006 (and still climbing) yet news coverage has not increased to match it. Erikson argues that media, which has, historically, been the voice of the upper class, rather than the poor, ignores homelessness.

Erikson writes:

"During this time, it was common for a network to devote between 3.3 to 11.6 minutes, per year to homelessness. Comparatively, the CBS, NBC and ABC nightly news programs devoted well over 378 minutes, or 6.3 hours to crime in 1988 alone."

     Granted the article is five years old and there are newer studies on homelessness out there, but I chose it to this one up because I was very struck by the conclusion Erikson reached. Why does journalism, very proud of its role as society’s watchdog, ignore the homeless segment of the population (other than the fact that they probably don’t watch TV news)? He cites Timothy Cook's writing on structural bias in "Governing With the News" as the reason behind this underrepresentation.

According to Cook: “For any news medium, whatever the source does must be packaged into a narrative. Not only must the story have protagonists and antagonists in conflict, but the sources’ actions must move the story along to a new episode.”

     Something like crime or natural disasters fit this narrative structure well. There is a story arc, and plenty of middle-to-upperclass individuals (one tends to seek out those like themselves for information and opinions) that can be interviewed for the news package.

     When you think about homelessness, however, it does not work with the news package narrative. There are very few camera friendly or 'official' first hand sources, as you rarely see anyone interviewing a homeless individual for their opinion on a subject. Every case is different, and does not fit neatly into a process, such as the legal proceedings associated with crime.

     Erikson wrote, "the news can report on the condition of homelessness in urban or rural America, but chances are the condition will continue just the same in the days to follow. Thus, the story does not have any movement… [and] may not even be considered a story."

     I found this very intriguing, as I don't think about, whether it is homelessness or any other 'non-narrative' subject, just how important the story is to news.

     I think we are in a special position as Gaylord students. We have a better grasp on what 'makes news' than the general public. I haven't had a single class here that didn't stress, or at least ask at some point 'What's the story?' Individuals don't consume news if it doesn't hold their attention, and stories hold attention.

     The thing I've never thought about however, is what do you do if you are not, in fact, newsworthy? Erikson actually gives suggestions at the end of his article as to ways homeless advocacy groups can make themselves more 'narrative' for news outlets.

     Though I can’t say I agree with everything Erikson writes (I disagree that news coverage can ever be 100% ‘fair’ as when every single voice gets equal time, we just end up with noise) it really wasn’t so much what he said, but that I’d not heard it brought up before.

     My question is, should the news media strive to make important subjects more newsworthy, or is it up to the individuals to grab our attention? How ethical is representing a subject or event differently for the sake of coverage?

Here is the article itself, if you have the time it is worth a read;

http://gnovisjournal.org/files/Edward-Erikson-Representation-of-Homelessness.pdf

Assigned Readings

     I believe Bailey was just teetering on the edge of being unethical regarding using posts for the Le murder story. Granted, she was accepted as a „Friend“ and kept on the page, but her declining an interview shows that Del Rocco did not want to take part in an interview, and may not want to share her personal information.
     That Bailey did not identify herself outright is not acceptable; just, as when a journalist calls an individual or business, they must identify their affiliation upon introduction, which Bailey failed to do. Messages can be sent along with requests; hers should have stated her reasons for wanting to ‚friend’ the woman. This would clear up any confusion outright as to whether Del Rocco should be aware her posts are being monitored or not. Even if she had agreed to an interview, I believe her Facebook posts are still not ‚part of the deal’ unless they would be accessible to a large enough group of people to be public. (I can’t think of a number off the top of my head, but, perhaps something beyond 600+ friends-- indisputably far above Dunbar’s number.)
     I think an easy litmus test can be applied to Facebook posts to see if they are usable. First, see who can read the posts; is it fully public, part of a large network (schools, businesses over, say, 200 employees, government organizations.) Is it part of a location based network, be it town or state? A good rule of thumb is, could anyone access the information without actually becoming friends (which requires special permission) with the individual or joining a group? If not, then the journalists must identify themselves before gaining acceptance if they wish to use any content they gather.

Truth in Advertising; the 'you' online.

                  As if enough had not already been said on the subject of Photoshop, here is another blog post about image editing. I think the perception among many people is that, outside of commercial contexts, there isn’t a whole lot of airbrushing going on, so who cares?

    I disagree. Photo retouching is so easily accessible today that I think it is much more rampant than people realize. Even bottom-of-the-line computers can handle running image editing software, and the only hurdle is how expensive adobe programs are (something like Photoshop Elements makes it a much more reasonable price.) Programs like GIMP are even free, and can do many of the things Photoshop can.

    What does that mean in day to day life? I have been known to de-acnify myself in photos I’m planning to publish, and anecdotal, I know, but back in community college I had an instructor (for Intro to Journalism, no less!) who told the class that she allows no one to take photos of her unless they agree to send them to her for editing, first. (The social hurdles that creates aside) Are we, as a culture, that obsessed with presenting a perfect ‘image’ online? Is the fact that you’d devote as much time airbrushing on a six-pack than you would going to the gym to obtain one something we should worry about?

    Photo correction has always existed, but it has only in the last decade become so widely available that nearly anyone can do it. Just to illustrate the point, I’m going to photoshop a photo of myself. I’m using my Mac Mini and a copy of CS4 on my home computer (so you see, it is pretty attainable, even if I don’t have Gaylord labs available.) To hammer the point home even further, I’m not going to use my DSLR, but a point and shoot, to prove you don’t even need a nice photo to start with.

 I must make disclaimer here, I worked for about a year at a wedding photographer, so I know my way around retouching images, but, this is no knowledge you wouldn’t gain with dedicated study of a book like ‘Adobe Digital Classroom’ or any other related how-to text. Click for the huge image.

1) Here I am, freshly rolled out of bed, no makeup, still in my pajamas. Aren’t you guys lucky I’m willing to embarrass myself like this FOR SCIENCE!?

2) First thing first, let’s do something about my acne. Most how-to texts suggest the spot repair tool, but I prefer patch for most repairs. Approximate time 3 minutes.

3) This is the point where I would stop, but let’s go a few steps further. Here is a trick I learned at the wedding photographer! Glowing ‘glamour shots’ style skin and hair. Make two new layers, one overlay, the other a copy of your base layer. The overlay layer is used for dodging and burning; the copy is going to be blurred out using Gaussian blur and hit with a contrast boost. Now go in with an eraser to get back the details. Approximate time 3 minutes.

4) Say I felt like shaving off a few pesky pounds for my plentyoffish.com profile (go ahead and look for it. I don’t have one) or, for faces, enhancing lips, eyes, removing double chins, what have you. Photoshop’s ‘liquefy’ tool is designed for just this, and is the basis for many of the previous posts ‘photochops.’ I leave it to eyes and lips. Approximate time 7 minutes.

5) So I forgot to wear makeup-- never fear! I personally don’t think this is ever acceptable (simply because it often looks so fake) but we’ll slap the digital equivalent of blush and mascara on me. Photoshop doesn’t come with an ‘eyelash’ brush, but you can download countless ones from Brusheezy or Deviant art. Approximate time 1 minute.

There you have it. Five steps to look better (or just weirder) on your Facebook profile. Looking at the before and after I can’t help but kind of feel a little like pimply troll. If we can’t even trust photos of our friends on social networking sites, how can we ever accept ourselves, flaws and all? Is editing photos of yourself just an extension of the preening we all do to look more attractive to our fellow humans? How much is too much when it comes to the truth in your digital photos?

Thoughts so far

Writing this blog has been an eye-opening experience for me, in more ways than one. Blogging is a lot of work. Previous semesters have touched on the blogging aspect, but trying to undertake a weekly publication while simultaneously working on other, often unrelated, web media was a bit of a shock to me, though I admit, a needed one. Today’s newsroom is as fragmented and multi-specialized as its readership, and any job in news media production will no doubt involve us wearing a multitude of ‘hats.’ This has fostered in me a greater appreciation for blogging, as before I would visit them, but had little conception of the work and research that goes into writing a post, even if most blogs draw from previously published source material.

I have also learned more about my topic than I previously thought possible. I had no idea the depth and scope of the role of photo editing in the news. I knew it was prevalent in paid communications (namely advertising) contexts, as I’m frequently browsing websites like Photoshop Disasters, and Bad Ad Good Ad. However, I had never really looked into other areas, and I was really surprised by how frequently it is used on government figures.

Via ForeignPolicy Blog

Via National Post

The airbrushing to remove love handles on French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the cleavage on MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan come to mind, as I had never heard, nor could I have imagined why anyone would want to/think they could get away with altering political figures before actually seeing it. Hearing things like ‘Perception is Reality’ thrown around in class and actually seeing it enacted in the media is fascinating. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is a paradigm shift in our society, I think it is something we (both as producers and consumers of media) will need to keep in mind for the future.

The interactivity is an interesting feature, though I admit I didn't get as much out of it as I probably could have. Perhaps my topic isn't that interesting, but I didn't get a whole lot of comments. When I did I tried my best to answer questions and add additional information, but it never resulted in a new post or additional content as I has expected (and hoped) it would.

Comments and interaction are a great tool for bloggers, as it keeps the readers coming back for more, in a sense. If I comment on a blog post, I will return to see if the writer has anything to say about it. Potential drawbacks are, of course, if a bloggers opinion is not like my own, I will, by human nature, distance myself from them and their blog.

The public must be a part of journalism if it is to survive. Comments and commenters generate much needed transparency in the journalism function. In an age with countless choices as to where to get your news, we need reader investment in the source. Newspaper and Broadcast news has been fragmenting for the past decades, and it takes more than being the only game in town to exist any longer in the writhing, bustling US media scene.

Photoshop Phoolishness

Photoshop is a pretty impressive program. It can work technological magic, seamlessly enhancing and altering photos with a few clicks of the mouse. Often judicious edits can be undertaken leaving little to no evidence behind that they were in any way altered in the first place.

Usually.

When wielded by an untrained (or trained but overzealous) hand, the effects can be more disturbing than wonderful. You probably have seen them before, on magazines, cheap DVD covers and mail circular catalogs.  Despite their ubiquity, I still think it is a great idea to seek them out. I personally have the blog Photoshop Disasters in my RSS feed, as I think anyone who works frequently in visual media needs to be reminded, frequently, of what not to do. It also opens up an interesting view in the sociological and psychological subtext of images. Watching a photo editor overshoot can give us a good idea of what the cultural (at least from a selling standpoint) ideal is, as opposed to the 'boring' reality that was originally captured on the camera.

The debacles range from amusing to outright disturbing as limbs are chopped off, cleavage ballooned to insane proportions and the subjects are clumsily dropped into backgrounds with mismatched lighting. The liquefy tool is either the best or worst thing to happen to photo editors, as it seems to be the culprit abused in the majority of 'photochops.'

Via Photoshop Disasters

Models are a very popular target. One of the most famous photochops of recent memory is the Ralph Lauren ad featuring a model looking more skeletal than alluring. Both Photoshop Disasters and The Huffington Post published articles blasting the photo (if you can call it that any longer) and the wholly unrealistic image it was trying to sell (so unrealistic even a size zero model can't achieve it. You may think that it would be impossible to go any farther from reality than that.

Via Huffington Post

As always, we are proven wrong. A rash of Internet citizens decried a case of a full body swap between Demi Moore on the cover of W and Anja Rubik. Although never fully substantiated, it is not the only case. Kimora Simmons was reported to have used a body double in her ad for Baby Phat. Does this say something about our idea of beauty when perfectly good-looking people don't pass muster on the pages of glossy magazines?

Via Jezebel

Whether it has an important sociological component or not, I believe everyone can agree that these 'disasters' are something that the media profession needs to work hard to avoid. How can we do that? Simple. I think the mantra that we need to use when working with any visual media (be it a photo manipulation or a personal website.) should be:

less is more.

The bobble-head model is the photographer's version of the blink text tag. Just because you have the technology to remove an actor's hands and replace them with someone else's (or, say, make the background of you website a repeating, animated American flag pattern with hot pink text) doesn't mean you have to.

Out of Context Images

Via Huffington Post

A photo is supposed to deliver the truth, unmarred by the sometimes-biased nature of language, to the viewer without fear or favor, right? Barring downright photo editing, which we’ve covered, photos can’t have an opinion, as such.

Not always.

With photos, just like with the words that make up language, context is key. So many cues can be pulled from the surrounding landscape (whether it be words or pictures) that the singularity of moment that may be a word or a snapshot is actually a part of a greater whole. To take an image out of context not only ruins the original message, but outs the communicator as biased.

Politicians are very fond of exclaiming that their words were taken out of context by the media (and sometimes they’re right) but do we often think about the images taken out of context?

This is a photo of Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek. Shortly after its publication, both the Internet and traditional news outlets exploded in a flurry of discussion. Was the pin-up girl nature of the photo sexist? How could she have agreed to pose/dress/etc in such a way?

Via Mediaite

The answer? Palin claimed the photo was taken out of context, and indeed the photo that was on the Newsweek cover had been taken for an issue of Runners World, where the athletic attire would have been much more appropriate. Newsweek’s motives, whether just ascribing to the belief that sex sells, or as an outright attempt to discredit instantly come into question and undermines their power as a news source.

Via Mediaite

The Republicans can’t have all the fun, though, can they? This image of Barack Obama circulates through various websites, culled from Getty Images and showing the President waving and blocking another man’s face during a photo op. This photo was real, but was taken from one of three shooters attending the event, when countless pictures were taken from the group. To select the one where he happens to be waving is not indicative of the truth of the scenario.

Via LGBTQ Nation

National Organization for Marriage even took theirs with a side of irony, as they stole a photo from a Barack Obama rally to pass off as their own on an anti-gay marriage website New Hampshire for Marriage.

I could go on, but there isn’t a whole lot to say about the individual images themselves. They all boil down to the same premise, really. Not only does the media hurt the individual they are attempting to discredit, but themselves with the same stroke. They may get their spurious ‘point’ across, but at the cost of a trusting audience in the long run. A lie of omission is still a lie, and to withhold information from the public can do nothing but harm a publication’s reputation.

This is not just something that impacts media professionals, but the public, too. Next time you see Michelle Bachmann looking glassy eyed on the cover of Newsweek, think about the subtext that photo editor had in mind when they chose the image.

A little more on Photography

Photography has been around for over 100 years, and it has changed a lot since its inception back in the 1800’s, and even the first true photograph taken by Joseph Niepce in 1826. (Warren) A big part of the (granted, few) photography classes I’ve taken and books I’ve read devote a huge chunk of time and energy to the history of the field.

I think this is truly, very important to appreciating and gaining a true understanding for the visual media and how to produce it, because we see throwbacks to earlier methods even today in this age of point-and-shoot. Let’s take a look at some older photography terms that still survive today, but in a new form.

Dodge/burn – The practice of dodging and burning comes from exposing areas of a photograph selectively to more or less light for a desired effect. 

Sponge? I have no idea.

So when your paper and negative are loaded up in the enlarger you would expose certain areas (burn) and cover others (dodge) to make said areas darker or lighter, respectively. Photoshop, GIMP and many other photo editing tools give photographers a means to digitally darken and lighten specific parts of their photo. Digital means are much more precise, as with film one wouldn’t know if they needed to add more or less time until the photo was fully developed. Films greater tonal curve, however, means much more lightening or darkening can occur before there is any loss of information in your image.

Proofs – Traditionally, a proof is made by cutting the negatives, laying them on top of a sheet of photographic paper and exposing the whole thing. The result is a sheet of tiny images, which can be viewed through a loupe. This is done to help you select which negatives are worthy of printing full size.

Today, the term ‘proof’ can mean a set of unedited images presented to a client in a portrait studio for selection, or it can mean a photographic resume of sorts, often a PDF with selections of the photographers work.

Negative – This is, of course, the crinkly stuff with all the sprocket holes in it you get after you develop an exposed roll of film. Negatives today (they have had numerous different compositions in the past) are gelatin-based sheets, which save the color information in such a way that when light is passed through it, it produces your photo on light sensitive paper.

Seen today in the file type DNG, or Digital Negative File, called such because it stores much more information than a JPEG, so is more like a negative in terms of long term storage and usefulness.

Cross Process, or X-PRO – This is a popular filter in many digital editing programs, such as Photoshop, GIMP and even on Instamatic. 

Photo by Ame Aziere

Originally, however, to cross process meant to develop one type of film in the chemicals used to develop another. The most popular is developing E6 film (used to shoot slides) in the chemicals for C41(this is the type for standard 35mm color film) and usually results in a greenish cast with high contrast when scanned with standard settings.

Airbrush – Based on, you guessed it, loading up an airbrush and painting directly over imperfections. This was very labor intensive, as it had to be done on a per-photo basis, but there are historical photos on which it was employed for propaganda purposes by the soviet government on more than one occasion.

You can see more here: http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Altered_Images#Trotsky.3F_What_Trotsky.3F

Today the term is used to mean a photo heavily and noticeably edited to remove perceived imperfections in the subject.

ISO – This, very simply, is a rating that determines how light-sensitive a roll of film is, to help the photographer be sure to expose it correctly and consistently.

Though traditionally rating numbers varied from country to country, the ASA (American Standard) and DIN (Deutches Industrie) was combined in the mid 80’s resulting in the international standard of ISO. (Warren)

 In digital photography, ISO serves a similar function, making the card more sensitive to light, at the cost of a ‘grainier’ (not actually grains, as in film, but technically image noise) photo.

Slides – These differ from negative film in that they record color the same as the photo would, usually to be viewed through a slide projector. The term ‘slide’ is used in PowerPoint and similar programs to denote pieces of visual information shown in a series for presentation to a group.

Please note, information where cited is coming from ‘Photography: The Concise Guide by Bruce Warren’ which is a great text, and I have kept ensconced at my desk as a reference. The following is by no means an exhaustive list, and if I’ve missed anything, please say so in the comments!

The Dark Side of Photoshop

Let's talk about Photoshop! We've been covering it in class, and now everyone has used it a bit, so I think now is a good time to talk about how it fits into news photography.

There are as many stances on the use of Photoshop or related editing programs for photojournalism, as there are news entities. Stances range from a firm 'no editing' policy, to allowing various cosmetic edits that do not 'alter reality' like the policy at the OU Daily.

You may be thinking, "What is the harm? A little photo editing here and there couldn't hurt anything!" I used to agree. Many news outlets do a fine job upholding said rules, and only employ editing software in tasteful, restrained ways.

I don't want to talk about them.

We're going to look at the bad apples in the bunch. The reason I think letting highly powered image editors exist in newsrooms can be a pretty awful idea, at times.

Recently, the Huffington Post did a write up over an article that was posted on the Daily Mail's website. As if they weren't in the news themselves enough for the wrong reasons. According to the article (and screen grabs of the website) Daily Mail wrote about Gwyneth Paltrow and the P.M.’s wife, Samantha Cameron appearing at a fashion event together. The problem? Accompanying their article was an obviously edited image of Mrs. Cameron and Ms. Paltrow.

From Anorak.UK

Huffington Post

Was such reality bending really necessary? If they appeared anywhere near one another, then cheating with angles or a telephoto lens could have made them appear closer together than they in truth, were. Or even resort to extreme close crops of both so you couldn't tell where they were in relation to one another. I'm not saying that's right by any means, but it is a little less egregious than outright digital lies.

You may argue that no one is expecting such accuracy from a little throw away story like that, so why bother? Well, because it isn't many steps between what happened here and what happened on Der Zeitung back in May. Many of you can recall unaided the images that covered most newspapers the day after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Barak Obama and his closest aides hunched over laptops around a table, concerned faces all around. A Brooklyn-based Hasidic paper published an article running an edited image, but edited in a very different way. Photos Courtesy of New York Daily News.

You must at least admit, they do a great job of getting rid of them. Maybe Photoshop 6 will have a "Remove anyone with ovaries" filter.

The real image.

No women to be seen! Zeitung claimed it was following Jewish modesty laws by removing the women, but altering photos in such a way is pretty indefensible, whatever the excuse.

Perhaps I'm overreacting, but when I see this image, I can't help but thick that the novel 1984 is finally coming true. Granted, there has been altering of photos for political reasons since the cold war, at least, but we're finally to the point that they're impossible for the layperson to detect. Simply removing all women (or minority of your choosing) from the historical (which is what news becomes, eventually) record is a pretty frightening concept.

If it was just too immodest to have fully clothed women in their newspaper, then they should have used censor bars, mosaic blurs or what have you. Then at least we'd know that some people were there, rather than letting us pretend they had no role in the shaping of history.

Post Two: Fitness

      Okay, this post backs up to my last one in a way-- I'm aiming to work through perceptions of gender first, then move on to more gender neutral territory as the blog progresses. Todays post concerns a niche, but rapidly growing sector of content; the fitness media.

      Millions upon millions of dollars are spent every year trying to shed 'unsighly' extra pounds off of the US population. The company behind Golds' Gym released a 2010 'Fitness Census' of health related data collected from the U.S. population. (http://www.goldsgym.com/healthy/newsletter/2010-04/2010-fitness-census) According to their data, there are 32 states with over a quarter of the population suffering from obesity, and two out of every three Americans are overweight. According to a CBS Money Watch article from 2002 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_3_20/ai_86230655/) the number of health clubs increased by nearly 40% from 92'-2002.

      Keeping fit is big business, it seems. Magazines, websites and whole television channels are devoted to health and fitness, but I have noticed something in the accompanying visual media that gets little comment; the way women and men are depicted in the midst of a work out seems to vary wildly depending on who is being portrayed.

      I'll come out and say it now. For a lot of people out there, working out is pretty terrible. Get up at the crack of dawn to beat the rush at the Huff, fight tooth and nail to get a free squat rack or bench, get sweaty, tired and stumble home feeling physically defeated.

     Why, then, do photos of women working out always look like this?

(All of these photos were collected at random cruising google for about ten minutes. I used combinations of "women, men, workout, weight, lifting" to gather these results.)

Women working out range from utterly elated (yeah, right) to occasionally slightly pensive. Men (save a couple of weird examples) seemed to fare much better. Expressions were usually neutral, with some verging on uncomfortable. I left out power lifting/body building websites, for obvious reasons; they make it a point to have their photos look like this:

Ronnie Coleman looks as if he's about to explode.

but while we're here compare that to these photos (also on bodybuilding.com) under 'workouts for women'

Our friend the five pound dumbbell is back!

Interesting differences, I'd say. I can't help but wonder what they are promoting with the images. Must women have a great time while pumping iron?

More importantly, why are all those models holding weights in the 2.5-10 pound range? I would bet you any amount of money they used weights orders of magnitude larger to get the results they have.

For as much as those weigh she may as well be curling a 1980's era cell-phone.

      The men may be lifting slightly heavier weights, but they're still in the pretty ridiculous 20-30 pound range. Why do we, as media and consumers, insist on 'dumbing-down' fitness?

     I believe much of the industrialized, western world has gown an aversion to sweat. Namely, I think that we are being peddled the images of people getting huge results with no input the same way Gillian Michaels tells you can get fit on your Wii Board, or the way Ephedra products claimed you could eat whatever you wanted and still lose weight*

*until your heart exploded.

     I only wonder how many people don't perform to their full potential, or quit because going to the gym isn't as 'fun' as all those smiling models seemed to suggest.

     What do you guys think? Am I way off base? Are there other industries doing the same thing?