The Distorted Gaze? Travel Photo Editing in the Social Media Era

Photos, Tourist Gazes, and Social Media

Following Foucault’s (1975) conceptualization of medical gaze, Urry’s (1990) tourist gaze explains how tourists escape their everyday life to experience the extraordinary and encounter the “other” (Urry & Larsen, 2011). The tourism literature examines tourist gaze from a multi-dimensional perspective. Several gaze concepts describe outward gaze among different parties, including tourist gaze on destinations (Urry & Larsen, 2011), mutual gaze, reverse gaze, host gaze between host and guest interactions (Maoz, 2006), intra-tourist gaze involving interactive relationships among other tourists, family, friends, and competitors (Pearce, 2005), gazes of travel agents, guides and brokers originating from industry workers (Cheong & Miller, 2000), and second gaze focusing on something concealed (MacCannell, 2001). These studies show that travel is a visual, multifaceted, and social process.

Tourists’ photographs record their experiences and memories, reflecting how tourists see the destination. Discussions about photography and tourist gaze traditionally follow the hermeneutic circle of representation (Jenkins, 2003; Urry, 1990). Specifically, tourists view iconic signs and take photographs to record the experience as a verification of their visit. Often these photographs merely reproduce images already seen in travel brochures or on websites. Arguably, this process demonstrates the recirculation of the destination image projected by the destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and their dominant power (Garrod, 2009).

Social media photographic practices and technology’s connectivity and simultaneousness have revised the hermeneutic circle of representation to emphasize tourists’ active roles (Balomenou & Garrod, 2019). Modern communication technology (e.g., social media channels) moves trip photos from memory triggers to sharing and disseminating the images with a much broader audience, including family members, friends, colleagues, travel companions, and even strangers (D. X. F. Fan et al., 2019). According to Munar and Jacobsen (2014), people share tourism experiences through social media to satisfy self-centered and community-related motivations. Through photograph sharing, tourists in situ share their experiences and stories, seeking emotional and social connections (White & White, 2007), and more importantly, creating a desired self-image in both real and virtual social networks. Tourists’ photo-taking and sharing reflects their gaze at the destination and consequently, how they construct and recollect the experience. This phenomenon of photography and digital involvement in situ is described as the social media tourist gaze (Walsh et al., 2019). Prior studies reveal that photo-taking and sharing enhance the enjoyment of a positive experience (H. Li et al., 2022) and increase satisfaction with the destination (M. Lee & Lee, 2021).

Selfies, as a main photo category, increasingly attract scholarly focus (Christou et al., 2020; Lyu, 2016; D. G. Taylor, 2020). Dinhopl and Gretzel (2016) regard travel selfies as self-directed tourist gaze. Through taking and sharing stylish selfies, tourists objectify themselves to others and consume themselves rather than the places, which results in invisible destinations. Christou et al. (2020) confirm that travel selfies on social media exclude destination attributes, generating an attraction-shading effect. In addition to selfies, tourists also post destination photos. Underexamined in the extant literature, tourists’ destination photos provide another opportunity to understand their perceptions and experiences.

Another interesting development is micro-celebrity gaze. Canavan (2020) proposes micro-celebrity gaze occurs when tourists perform in front of others not only to see themselves but also to be seen by others. This research area suggests that a tourist’s self-esteem needs to be distinguished from other tourists while participating in a famous event (i.e., Mongol Rally), especially when the event news and their profile are published on social media. Micro-celebrity status emphasizes the gaze from locals, press, and sponsor audiences; however, the power of the ordinary online audience is neglected.

The literature confirms that tourist gaze is an evolving concept. Tourists’ gazes arguably have shifted due to photo-taking/selfie-taking and social media exposure (Canavan, 2020; Jansson, 2018; Lo & McKercher, 2015; Walsh et al., 2019). Their behavior also appears to be moving from an outward to an inward gaze (Dinhopl & Gretzel, 2016). However, as most current research concentrates on selfies, destination photos have been consistently ignored. Moreover, the discussion of tourist gaze and hermeneutic circle remains framed within photographs and social media, and the prevalent phenomenon of photo editing remains largely understudied.

The Rise of Photo-Editing Behavior

In addition to capturing and sharing photos, contemporary technology enables individuals to use photo-editing tools before posting images on social media. Psychology and sociology literature suggest three research streams to explain this pervasive behavior. First, self-presentation theory (Goffman, 1959) posits that individuals selectively present themselves to construct and convey an ideal self (Baumeister, 1982). Photo editing affects how an individual wishes to be perceived by others (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008). Prior studies report that people edit their photos to develop an idealized virtual self-image and achieve good impression management (Chae, 2017). Frequently mentioned predictors include narcissism (J. W. Kim & Chock, 2017; Lowe-Calverley & Grieve, 2018), body satisfaction (McLean et al., 2015), public self-consciousness (Chae, 2017), and self-esteem (Chua & Chang, 2016).

The second research theme focuses on the social-oriented aspect. When presenting oneself, an individual cares about how others feel and think. Social comparison theory suggests that people edit photos to create self-identity and group belongingness by means of comparison to others (Attrill, 2015; Festinger, 1954). Do they meet the norm of beauty after comparing with their peer’s appearance (Chua & Chang, 2016)? Will one’s presentation fall below the standard and receive negative judgment from others (McKinley & Hyde, 1996)? To minimize negative criticism, people tend to post images that they believe will please their audience and receive more online audience likes and comments (Bell et al., 2018).

The third research theme concentrates on the outcome of photo editing. The potential consequences receive less attention than the preceding research streams. Extant studies investigate the relationships between photo-editing and body concerns, such as body image and body dissatisfaction (McGovern et al., 2022). Maslow (1943, p. 382) describes self-esteem as the need for prestige, attention, or appreciation. Strategic photo editing behavior contributes to individuals’ self-esteem through self-promotion (Halpern et al., 2016). In addition, the incentives for effortless photo editing and sharing include creating the desired self-image (Toma & Hancock, 2010) and potential social rewards.

Photo Editing Studies in the Tourism Domain

Although photo-editing has become a worldwide ritualistic behavior for people, especially digital natives, the tourism domain receives limited scholarly attention. Lyu (2016) investigates Korean female tourists’ strategic self-presentation orientation and attributed selfie-editing behavior to appearance-related concerns. Additionally, Xie et al. (2023) examine the filter effect on a popular Chinese platform Red and reveal the negative impact of heavily filtering photos in destination marketing. Another study explores landscape alienation of bloggers’ travel pictures and finds that stakeholders’ profit maximization rather than authenticity dominated the photo modification phenomenon (M. Zhou et al., 2023).

Previous research primarily concentrated on appearance concerns or commercial photos utilized by destinations and their business partners to attract prospective customers, with scant attention being given to the autonomous photo-editing behavior of tourists. This understudied phenomenon merits investigation from the tourist’s perspective for several reasons. First, the power dynamics between tourists and places alter from photo editing. From the tourists’ perspective, the image reproduction process allows them to edit photos (i.e., distorting images) as desired. Thus, tourists seize the power to display the destination to match their preferences or expectations. From the destination’s perspective, an altered photo becomes a two-edged sword in building and maintaining the destination image. On the one hand, DMOs lose control of destination image presentation. Individual tourists determine how to present the destination, and their self-interests influence both themselves and the online audience’s interpretation. On the other hand, what tourists post on social media potentially contributes to the destination’s personality enhancement or brand renewal.

Second, tourists modify both selfie photos and destination photos. A set of questions remain unanswered. Why do tourists edit their selfies and destination photos? Does the photo’s fidelity influence the perceived destination image? Do edited photos alter tourists’ perception of authenticity? Answers to these questions contribute to understanding the shifting power relationship from DMO to tourist, how tourists gaze at the destination via photo editing, and how photo editing negotiates the hermeneutic circle in the digital era.

Edited Photo and Authenticity

MacCannell (1973) suggests object, constructive, and existential authenticity lenses describe tourism research. Object authenticity refers to the absolute originality of toured objects, and constructive authenticity emphasizes the symbolic projection of the toured objects based on tourists’ constructed imagery and expectations. By contrast, existential authenticity refers to the experience rather than the actual toured objects. This conception comprises intra- and inter-personal authenticity. The former involves sensual (e.g., relaxation, excitement, recreation) and symbolic (e.g., display of personal identity) bodily feelings and self-making. The latter involves emotional connections with other people (N. Wang, 1999). In addition to these three common types, some postmodernists deconstruct authenticity, and pursue a status of inauthenticity (N. Wang, 1999). This postmodern deconstruction is indifferent to whether the objects actually exist, are replicas, or are artificial. For example, Q. Zhou et al. (2023) categorize object authenticity, constructive authenticity, and postmodernism as object-oriented, with postmodernists showing the most radical attitude toward objects, while existential authenticity is more subject-oriented. Heidegger (1996) views existential authenticity as not requiring an enduring authentic or real self, suggesting that tourists seek to be themselves existentially. Specifically, tourists choose to be unique when they project their authentic self–self; when projecting they–self, tourists tend to conform with others. In other words, tourists do not always seek travel authenticity; sometimes they just go with the flow (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). Metaphorically, existential authenticity is not a matter of black and white; instead, this lens views travel as a relative and dynamic concept that links to meaningfulness rather than purely pleasure-seeking experiences (H. Kim & Jamal, 2007).

Traditionally, authenticity has been discussed based on travel objects or experiences, and photographs primarily document reality. Social media and photo editing technology developments provide fertile grounds to facilitate the discussion of authenticity in virtual space. Dávila-Ruiz and Vazquez (2021) assert that authenticity still plays an important mediation role in impacting people’s engagement and purchase intention for traditional advertisement. However, when deconstructing authenticity in photo editing, using images to reflect truth is paradoxical and creates a hyper-reality world (X. Wang & Hu, 2023). M. Zhou et al. (2023) claim that social media users’ attitudes toward the authenticity of promotion travel pictures depend on their expectations of media. If users value media pictures that should reflect the truth, they would feel cheated if guided by modified photos. The authors thoroughly discussed users’ fluid attitudes toward the authenticity of commercial travel pictures. However, it treated tourists as passive consumers who accept modified photos, thereby neglecting tourists’ perspectives on their autonomous photo editing behavior and authenticity.

Tourists edit selfies or other travel photos out of various motivations and share them across social media platforms. Although photo sharing may originate from a desire to share real self/experience with others, the practice of photo retouching arguably shifts the focus from the destination to a self-deceptive journey that fails to discover the authentic self/experience. In sum, tourists’ photo editing behavior fits the description of a meaningful and urgent topic (Tribe & Mkono, 2017). A preliminary study to investigate such an underestimated but pervasive behavior will help to understand tourists’ photo editing behavior and attitudes toward authenticity, and explore how tourist gaze is extended and refined under the photo-editing scenario.

Researcher Positionality Statement

This study’s authors have basic personal experiences editing travel photos and do not regularly share edited photos on social media platforms. An interest in this topic developed while observing rapidly growing photo editing behavior and patterns among people’s social media accounts. Additionally, this research project was assessed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the authors’ affiliated university, and ethical standards have been strictly followed throughout the research process. Throughout the interview process, interviewers demonstrated empathy for participants’ diverse travel and photo-editing experiences, joyful or regretful. Personal experiences helped to connect with the study participants. The first two authors are bilingual in English and Mandarin, which enabled participants to freely use popular Internet buzzwords in their native languages during the interview without explaining underlying connotations. Therefore, the research team acknowledges the role of self in knowledge creation, the potential influence of implicit biases and values, and the importance of balancing personal and universal perspectives (Finlay, 2002).

Inductive Qualitative Approach With Photo-Elicitation Method

From a constructivism paradigm, an inductive qualitative study is the most suitable research method (Patton, 2014). In-depth interviews provide the best opportunity to capture complexities and nuances of human behavior because data are collected as stored by respondents (e.g., Mattila, 2000; Moscardo, 2020). Further, the Gestalt psychology literature offers evidence that human minds store information as both conscious and unconscious memories (Köhler, 1947). Decision-making likely incorporates a dual process of conscious and unconscious memory retrieval (Evans, 2003). As up to 95% of thinking occurs unconsciously (Zaltman, 2003), allowing respondents to explain their behavior helps to release memories stored in the unconscious mind (Wilson, 2002).

For the validity and reliability of the word-based inquiry, the photo-elicitation method, which “is based on the simple idea of inserting a photograph into a research interview” (Harper, 2002), was employed as another research tool. Images help to release and shape thoughts (Pinker, 1994), and four primary types of photo elicitation based on image sources are frequently employed in social research: photographs produced by the researcher, gathered by the researcher, produced by the research participant (designated for research), and gathered by the research participant (not designated for research) (Balomenou & Garrod, 2019). To help the participants recall a greater depth of their detailed travel experience and feelings, this study collected photos taken by participants but not commissioned for research. These pictures typically represent the participants’ gaze (Latz, 2017), and the travel photos display the unique meaning that the researcher cannot fully experience or understand without participants’ narratives, particularly in the context of tourists’ photo editing behavior. In this particular type of photo-elicitation, participants describe the images that they created, which contributes to eliciting responses and excavating memories from participants (Latz, 2017). Meanwhile, this process provides an excellent medium to encourage open expression, bridge the cultural differences between strangers, and build rapport with participants (E. W. Taylor, 2002).

Participants

The present study targets digital natives because they are more likely to employ the new emerging editing applications. A purposive, experience-based sampling method was first utilized to approach the respondents. The research team published recruitment information on a popular Chinese online community (i.e., Douban) and two social media channels (i.e., WeChat and Instagram) to ensure the diversity of participants. Qualified adult participants who had travel experience within a year before the interview and had shared retouched travel photos on social media platform(s) were purposely selected. A snowball sampling technique helped to recruit more participants. To screen participants, each recruit provided brief background information and a screenshot of their social media posts about the latest travel.

Data Collection

Based on the related literature review, the interview protocol was outlined to help participants narrate their travel experiences and relevant photo-editing behaviors (Egger et al., 2020; Kvale, 1994). First, participants were asked to recall their most recent travel experience. In addition to the screenshot submitted during the screening phase, they were also required to provide at least one full photo within the screenshot, they had taken, edited, and shared on social media during or after this trip. Along with the photo-elicitation, participants began their travel story related to the photo(s), which led to their photo retouching behavior, including the social media platform(s), photo category, frequency, editing software, and functions used. Next, participants’ motivations (e.g., Why did you modify your photos before sharing them online?), expectations and online interactions (e.g., What message did you want to send with the edited photos? What did you expect from the“audience”by sharing these edited photos?) relating to photo retouching behavior were explored. Finally, attitudes toward the edited photos’ authenticity were discussed (e.g., How do you feel about the authenticity of this photo compared to the real scenery or real you?). The interview protocol was originally developed in English and translated into Chinese. Back translation and language equivalence were double-reviewed and confirmed by two bi-lingual researchers.

Pilot interviews with three graduate students and a separate focus group with four other graduate students were initiated to refine questions for improved clarity and structure. This study then progressed to conduct a total of 23 comprehensive semi-structured interviews with participants from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds (see Table 1). After 20 interviews, the research reached the point that the newly collected data did not add anything novel to the overall story, suggesting an initial point of data saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). To minimize the potential bias and increase the sample diversity, three more interviews were carried out to validate and ensure data saturation (Patton, 2014). Altogether 23 interviews were conducted for the data analysis.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Profile of Participants.

Interview ID	Age	Gender	Country of residence	Occupation
# 1	21	Male	China	Undergraduate student
# 2	18	Female	China	Undergraduate student
# 3	22	Female	China	Teacher
# 4	24	Female	China	Unemployed
# 5	38	Female	China	Entrepreneur
# 6	30	Female	China	Government employee
# 7	28	Female	China	Government employee
# 8	25	Male	China	Company employee
# 9	35	Female	China	Insurance employee
# 10	29	Female	China	Independent blogger
# 11	26	Female	China	Company employee
# 12	26	Female	China	Company employee
# 13	25	Male	China	Company employee
# 14	32	Female	China	Graduate student
# 15	21	Female	U.S.	Undergraduate student
# 16	21	Female	U.S.	Undergraduate student
# 17	25	Female	U.S.	Company employee
# 18	26	Female	U.S.	Lawyer
# 19	31	Female	U.S.	Company employee
# 20	31	Female	U.S.	Company employee
# 21	20	Male	U.S.	Undergraduate student
# 22	30	Male	U.S.	Graduate student
# 23	32	Male	U.S.	Graduate student

All interviews were held virtually since the interviews happened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each interview lasted approximately 50 to 80 minutes. Even though most photo editing application users are female (Statista, 2019) and women edit photos more frequently (Fox & Vendemia, 2016), people who grow up in the digital age tend to exhibit similar behavioral features in technology and social media usage (Fox & Rooney, 2015). Hence, this current study included both female and male participants.

Data Analysis Process

Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim; all participants are referred to by pseudonyms in this study. The transcribed interviews were thematically coded using both NVivo 12 software and manual coding. Two researchers worked independently to ensure accuracy of the thematic analysis and allow for investigator triangulation.

Following Anantamongkolkul et al. (2019)’s approach, three phases of the coding process (i.e., open coding, axial coding, and selective coding) were adopted to seek the themes and meanings from the interview transcripts. Open coding identified a collection of concepts and extracted categories. In the axial coding phase, the connections between categories were determined. The third phase integrated all the categories into holistic categories. Cohen’s (1960) Kappa value, which addresses the probability of coding agreement by chance, was calculated to ensure inter-coder reliability (McHugh, 2012). The Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.82 suggests strong consistency between the two coders in the research team.

Focus Groups as Data Triangulation

Two rounds of focus groups were conducted further to triangulate interview data and validate the results. The focus groups assist researchers in uncovering connections between an individual’s detailed subjective narratives and the overall intra-group dynamics involved in photo editing behavior and perception of authenticity. Each focus group included five participants, comprising seven females and three males, aged in their 20s and 30s, and residing in five different countries in Asia, Africa, and the United States. The session started with everyone sharing their edited photos posted on social media from their most recent trip—when, where, photo editing Apps, and social media used. Next, study participants described their motivations for editing the travel photos, and their perspectives on the authenticity issue of edited photos.

Participants actively shared their thoughts and reflected on others’ experiences. This process led to natural engagement in a group dynamic where study participants constructively shared their agreements and disagreements. The focus groups lasted for approximately 1 to 1.5 hr, respectively, and the meetings were recorded and transcribed. The data analysis follows a similar approach to the interpretation of interview data. Two researchers independently coded the narratives and achieved a Cohen’s Kappa value of 0.89. More importantly, no new themes were identified, which further verified data saturation in the interview stage.

Characteristics of Travelers’ Photo Editing Behavior

Participants’ photo editing behavior demonstrated several key characteristics. Initially, most participants used mobile applications to edit their photos, focusing primarily on basic photo adjustment (level one) and photo retouching (level two) editing. Adding filters was reported as the most frequently used function. Additionally, travelers edited not only their selfies but also destination photos (i.e., scenery, architecture, and food). Notably, non-selfie photos accounted for 67% of participants’ most recently shared photos. Moreover, many participants used more than one application to modify their travel photos. Lastly, both male and female participants showed similar enthusiasm for travel photo editing. Table 2 presents a summary of participants’ editing and sharing preferences for their most recent trips.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of Participants’ Photo Editing Behavior From the Most Recent Trip.

Interview ID	Shareplatforms	Totalphotos posted	Photo type (#)	Apps used	Editing functions
					Level 1 (basic photo adjustments)	Level 2 (photo retouching activities)
#1	WeChat	18	Destination photo (16); Selfie photo (1); Photo with companions (1)	Photoshop	Adjusting parameters.	Removing blemishes
#2	WeChat	30	Destination photo (15); Selfie photo (13); Photos with companions (2)	VSCO; Huangyou	Adding filters.	Removing other tourists
#3	WeChat	18	Destination photo (10); Selfie photo (7); Photo with companions (1)	Meitu Pic; Qing Yan; B612; Foodie; Mix; Shui You	Automatic beauty; Adding filters.	Tuning the face
#4	WeChat; Facebook	8	Food (4); Destination photo (2); Selfie photo (1); Photo with companions (1)	Meitu Pic; Xing Tu	Adding filters; Adjusting the light and saturation.	Tuning the face; Stretching the thighs and legs
#5	WeChat	24	Food (18); Selfie photo (6)	Meitu Pic	Adjusting the light; Cropping.	Tuning the face, body, thighs, and legs; Adding stickers
#6	WeChat	8	Destination photo (7); Food (1)	Meitu Pic	Adding filters; Adjusting the color.
#7	WeChat;Ma Feng Wo	9	Destination photo (8);Selfie photo (1)	Huang You	Adding filters; Adjusting the saturation, and contrast.
#8	Qzone	4	Destination photo (3);Selfie photo (1)	Photoshop express	Adjusting the shade, light.
#9	WeChat	7	Selfie photo (6);Photo with companions (1)	Meitu	Automatic beauty; Adding filters.	Tuning the body
#10	WeChat; Ma Feng Wo;Qiong You Web; Douban	2	Destination photo (1);Selfie photo (1)	Snapseed	Adjusting the color; Adjusting brightness, saturation, and contrast; Adding filters.
#11	WeChat	9	Destination photo (4);Selfie photo (5)	Meitu Pic	Adjusting the light; Adding filters.	Tuning the face; Stretching the leg and thighs
#12	WeChat	2	Destination photo (2)	Meitu Pic	Adjusting the color; Cropping; Rotating the angle; Adding filters.
#13	WeChat	2	Destination photo (2)	Snapseed	Adjusting the saturation, light; Enhancing the color.
#14	WeChat;Instagram	9	Destination photo (7);Selfie photo (1);Photo with companions (1)	Meitu PicMeiyan (Beauty) Camera	Automatically beauty; Adjusting the light; Adding filters.
#15	Instagram	5	Selfie photo (5)	InstagramFacetune	Adding filter; Brightening the light.	Whitening the teeth; Reshape the body
#16	Instagram	1	Selfie photo (1)	Colourtone	Adjusting the color and saturation.
#17	Instagram	14	Selfie photo (10);Destination photo (4)	iPhone camera	Adjusting the light, color, or shadow.
#18	Instagram	21	Selfie photo (1);Destination photo (20)	Adobe Lightroom	Adjusting the light, color, and sharpness.
#19	Instagram	2	Destination photo (2)	Instagram	Adding filter; Adjusting the brightness, sharpness, and contrast.
#20	Instagram	4	Destination photo (4)	Instagram	Adjusting the brightness, sharpness, and contrast.
#21	Instagram	2	Selfie photo (1)Destination photo (1)	Instagram	Adding filters.	Adding sticker and caption
#22	WeChat	4	Selfie photo (1)Destination photo (3)	iPhone camera	Cropping, adding filter, auto enhancement
#23	Instagram	3	Selfie photo (1)Destination photo (2)	Instagram	Cropping, auto enhancement, adding filter	Removing blemishes

Note. This information was collected from the screenshot of participants’ social media post with their consent.

Motivations for Travel Photo Editing Behavior

Participants’ motivations for photo editing were coded and conceptualized by photo presentation, self-presentation, social connection, and destination presentation (see Figure 2). For primary motivations, most participants mentioned technical limitations or artwork re-creation. Some participants edited the photos to make images appear more like the actual scenery that they encountered (“Most current photograph techniques fail to fully capture what you see with your own eyes”—Interview Participant #1). Other participants viewed the editing process as artwork re-creation, and personal communication with the photo and the “audience” on social media as a means “to express our worldview and ourselves.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Motivations for travel photo editing.

At the individual level, “Looking better than the actual self” has become an essential pursuit when taking photos. Participants edited travel photos to make themselves and their companions physically look better, entertain themselves, satisfy their ego/self-esteem needs, and present or maintain a better self-image. Tourists editing and sharing their travel photos present an idealized lifestyle and esthetic preference to others. Retouching travel photos before sharing them on social media apparently creates a better personal image:

I did edit the photos before I shared them since good-looking is of great importance to me. After all, it is to be posted on the WeChat Moment, a social platform that needs to be managed on purpose. I would say that contents shared on this platform are expected to be the best-looking self. (Interview Participant #3)

Photo editing also serves to strengthen social connections. Primarily, this connection exhibits unilateral demand for life sharing, social conformity, social comparison, and the audience’s gaze. Many participants edited photos just to conform to peers. Because all other people did the same was frequently mentioned as a reason why participants modified their travel photos before posting them. Unconscious social conformity encourages photo editing before sharing on social media.

Results confirm a strong need for social acceptance affects photo editing behavior. Participants feel compelled to obtain support and positive interactions from their acquaintances and a broader online audience (viz., receiving likes and complimentary comments). These demands compel most participants to keep the online audience’s gaze in mind when they share their travel photos:

Good comments on social media during travel inspire me to share more, since it is exciting that someone feels the same way as I do. In this case, the prompt online feedback and support from the audience would encourage me to explore more about what may interest them in the destination. (Interview Participant #5)

Evidence of reference and aspirational group acceptance appears to affect behavior too. “When I see that people comment more on a certain type of photo, I’ll try to post more similar ones because it feels good when they like it” (Interview Participant #18). However, seeking social approval sometimes results in “disappointing feelings” (Interview Participant #20). Light audience responses or unfriendly comments on public display cause the participant to feel vulnerable. “Definitely the audience, especially the male audience, would pay attention to the appearance. I cannot bear that someone judges my weight and appearance, so I edited my photo before posting them” (Interview Participant #11).

Additionally, individuals observe other people’s posts (J. A. Lee & Sung, 2016), comparing editing skills and the final effect. Many participants reported that they learned editing skills from people who made their photos look natural and appealing. At the same time, they were also critical of others’ images which seemed over-manipulated. Results confirm that social connectivity (e.g., audience response) affected participants’ concerns about self-presentation and image management (Rui & Stefanone, 2013). More positive support from the online audience increases participants’ willingness to present both themselves and the destination in the travel photos.

Participants also edited their travel photos to make the destination appear more enticing. Such behavior implies a travel recommendation, and the distorted image also frames participants’ pre-trip expectations. Photo editing also reduces the gap between expected and actual destination images. “I felt that the color of the mountain did not look good. It was much better after adding a filter to make it more like what I saw on ‘Red’ [a popular social media site in China]” (Interview Participant #6). This finding suggests that tourists tend to gaze within a hermeneutic circle (Urry & Larsen, 2011), and destination image construction comes from DMOs and social media. A gestalt destination image forms from the DMOs’ official websites, web influencers, acquaintances, and many other channels. The results support the increasing power of social media channels and web influencers in building the projected image. In addition, a good presentation of the destination also contributes to self-impression management and online interaction.

Travel photo editing and sharing serve a dual purpose. Tourists use their travel photos as evidence of “being there” and a channel for life sharing and emotion expressing (“I usually don’t take selfies, but I enjoy photographing destinations. I edit and adjust colors to express myself and my emotions.” by Focus Group Participant #2). More importantly, they consciously or unconsciously display a specific personal image or a strong status on social networks to attract like-minded others by presenting the destination and themselves to their potential online audience.

Edited Authenticity

Tourists construct travel photo authenticity after retouching and sharing the photos on social media. These edited photos reflect the best image of their experiences. Narratives varied among participants regarding the necessity of photos to authentically reflect the real travel experience. Three major streams of attitude appeared in participants’ responses. Some participants insisted that authenticity comes first, and photo retouching should not go beyond what “real” looks like. “I would not exaggerate travel photos when I edited them. A good balance between good looking and authenticity is important to me. A pretty photo which loses its originality is meaningless” (Interview Participant #7). This view supports the notion that the main pursuit focuses on respecting the real self and scenery at the travel destination.

Another perspective emphasizes tourists’ own feelings and inner needs, interpreting authenticity through a different lens. Focus Group Participant #4 claimed that “We have the freedom to express our view and perspective. It is a compromise [between the real scenery and self-expression].” The essence of authenticity not only reflects on photo visuality, but also recognizes the medium’s limitation in representing the real travel experiences. Photo editing does more than satisfy visual centrism; the practice also serves as a tool for embodiment presentation:

Even though the scenery photo was edited, no matter what you have done on the photo, like adding a filter, adjusting the brightness or saturation, it is still authentic. Since it is hard to fully express the immersive, three-dimensional experience via the photo regardless of the modification techniques, all I can say is that editing is like make-up, but still fails to capture what you really see and feel. (Interview Participant #10)

Some participants consider authenticity less critical than good-looking photos because visual attractiveness and pleasure weigh more. They believe that people naturally pursue and present visually appealing images to satisfy visual esthetics. Between “validating the existing” and “discovering the new,” an entertaining photo matters more than reflecting real scenery or self. A compelling need to capture an extraordinary scene drives them to imitate others’ popular photos. One participant elaborated how she manipulated the photo-taking process (see Figure 3):

Did you notice that? There was no water but a cliff under the swing. The staff in my hotel just helped me manipulate the camera and mirror. It was novel to me since I never experienced it before. Of course, I added a filter to make it look better before I shared it. (Interview Participant #9)

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

An example of photo editing.

Concerns about authenticity seem minimal. The participant further stated that “I would search on the web how other tourists photographed the Bali Island. If they could retouch the photos using proficient skills, I could do it as well. I would not worry about authenticity at all.”

This typical photo editing behavior also demonstrates the power of social conformity and explains why travel photo authenticity is secondary. Conformity theory helps to explain this behavior (Bernheim, 1994). These individuals conform to a homogeneous standard of behavior (e.g., following a popular trend) to maintain their status. The group’s existing social norm facilitates not only conformity but also comparison.

I do not worry about the authenticity of the photos at all, since everybody else does the same thing. Looking pretty matters the most. Besides, for me, I just added a filter at most. However, some of my friends even went further than me; they edited the photo so much that you can barely recognize them. (Interview Participant #3)

Arguably, travel photo authenticity is a false proposition. Some participants reported that the photo need not accurately reflect the destination or oneself. Their motivations are to create a beautiful illusion and to receive positive feedback. This self-construction and self-fulfillment process does not relate to capturing and displaying authentic images. In addition, judging a travel photo’s authenticity is subjective in nature.

Edited travel photos serve the purpose of creating a visually appealing image by somewhat altering what tourists really see and experience at the destination. The phenomenon of intentional image distortion is conceptualized in this study as “the distorted tourist gaze.” Edited travel photos do more than report an expected gaze; technology and creativity support the creation of a multi-sensuous experience. Furthermore, today’s social media age provides platforms for showcasing images altered by reconfiguring light, color, and other pictorial elements to create a distorted gaze.

Theoretical Implications

This study makes several theoretical contributions to the current literature. Initially, in line with psychological research, the results validate the need for self-presentation when tourists strategically present themselves online via photographs (Attrill, 2015; Rui & Stefanone, 2013). The demand for social connection serves as another major motivation. Results also confirm the role of social comparison in photo editing behavior (Chua & Chang, 2016). Perhaps more importantly, people also edit their photos for social conformity (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Respondents gain social approval or justify themselves, especially when photo editing has become a norm in their community. These motivations are reflected in (travel) selfies and pure destination photos. Furthermore, this study identifies novel motivations based on photos and destinations. Particularly for the latter, the results suggest that people edit photos not just to present themselves but also to showcase a better destination from their perspectives.

Additionally, this study extends the current conceptualization of tourist gaze by introducing the distorted gaze, a tourist’s gaze on the self or destination distorted by photo editing. The distorted gaze concept goes beyond the merely outward and inward direction of tourist gaze, and it reflects tourists’ ideal visual image of the self or the destination through their own modification of the photos taken. The distorted gaze contributes to presenting a better self, impressing others, meeting tourists’ expectations of the destination, and collecting more positive memories. Meanwhile, the photo editing behavior may result in a distorted gaze perception of other audiences. Travel photo editing defines how tourists present themselves and the destination. Such gazes actively interact with the online audience and become an integral part of the hermeneutic circle of presentation.

Lastly, responding to Tribe and Mkono's (2017) call for research on how technology consciously changes tourists’ attitudes toward authenticity, this study extends the discussion of authenticity from the direct travel experience to the online sharing experience based on tourists’ photo editing behavior. Travel photo retouching suggests that people have heterogeneous attitudes about authenticity. More importantly, findings also indicate a shift from objective/constructive authenticity to existential authenticity/postmodern perspective, reflecting the pursuit of experiencing the true self without focusing much on authenticity. Such perspectives also inform both tourists’ and an online audience’s gazes.

Managerial Implications

Social media displays of tourists’ photos suggest that destination marketers might lose some control of destination image. This study offers the following practical implications to destination management. The present study shows that a tourist’s primary motivation to modify pictures is presenting a projected or ideal destination. This practice serves as an opportunity to integrate the power of tourists to avoid the destination shading effect (Christou et al., 2020) and to increase destination visibility. For example, destination marketers could hold campaigns about destination image re-creation. Encouraging travelers to use editing tools (e.g., adjusting brightness, saturation, or adding filters) to retouch the travel photos identifies critical components and helps to create the best narrative for the destination. These reproduced photos are endowed with personality using vivid elements. Enhanced visual esthetics likely influence other tourists’ future visit intentions as well (Xiao et al., 2022).

Tourists’ photo editing behavior also serves as a valuable tool for DMOs to gain insights into tourists’ expectations and perceptions. These insights can guide DMOs in effectively managing and updating destination brands. While the renovation of destination brand is essential, DMOs must prioritize understanding what tourists observe and experience. However, DMOs should exercise caution regarding excessively altered photos, as they might provide a misleading representation to the online audience. Generating unrealistic expectations leads to disappointment from the tourists during their actual travel. To address this potential issue, emphasis should be placed on enhancing the visual esthetic design and overall experience of the attraction system. By doing so, visitors are less likely to feel the need to extensively edit photos to compensate for any unmet needs or dissatisfaction within the destination.

Limitations and Future Research

Study limitations also present opportunities for future research. First, although this study pioneeringly probes a widespread phenomenon of travel photo editing behavior through an inductive, qualitative approach, the research findings are not conclusive. Further investigation is necessary to validate photo editing motivations. Also, how does photo editing affect consequential variables such as tourists’ experience and memory?

Second, specific gender differences in travel photo editing were not revealed in this study, and previous studies suggest that gender differences in social media usage might be narrowing (Fox & Vendemia, 2016). Additional quantitative investigation of gender differences may lead to a better understanding of this behavior and the consequences on tourists’ experiences. Other important differences may exist in photo editing behavior. This study’s preliminary nature did not examine cultural differences between the participants. To determine whether these differences exist requires a more focused investigation in the future.

Finally, the challenges photo editing may bring to tourism, including tourist experience, destination image management, and the audience on social media should be examined in future research. From a destination management perspective, exploring how destinations manage the distorted image and achieve sustainable development is a promising research area. As both positive and negative images surface from social media, how can destinations manage the uncontrollable? Future studies need to examine these questions from different stakeholder perspectives and employ multiple research methodologies.