#ar filters

[yvetteeeeeeeee]

Week 9: Can You Trust What You See? AR Filters and Digital Authenticity🤓

Helloooooooooo😜 These augmented reality (AR) filters are now a part of social media culture, ranging from ‘dog ears'🐶 on Snapchat to ‘perfect skin' on Instagram and TikTok. In a single tap, users can smooth skin, alter facial features, add makeup, and even completely alter their appearance. These filters can be innocuous and amusing, but they also ask questions regarding digital authenticity and digital self presentation.

But what are AR Filters?

AR filters are digital overlays that alter a user’s appearance in real time using facial recognition and tracking technology. They are designed to enhance interaction, creativity, and entertainment on social media platforms. However, understanding how these filters work is an important aspect of software literacy. Software literacy refers to the ability to understand, evaluate, and critically use digital technologies rather than simply consuming them. Many users apply filters without considering the algorithms and design choices behind them. Developing software literacy helps users recognize that filtered images may not accurately represent reality. Understanding the technology behind AR filters empowers users to become informed and responsible participants in digital environments.

The Rise of Filtered Reality

People’s self-perception and perception of others have undergone a complete transformation as a result of social media. Digital technologies are becoming more and more important in the way people build their identity and interact with others. The images that are shared online are often purposefully chosen, edited and filtered, and may not accurately depict what life is like for you (Rettberg, 2014). Besides, AR filters are part of this, enabling users to showcase their perfect selves. Users will look more in tune with the socially acceptable beauty standards, such as larger eyes, smoother skin, slimmer faces and improved facial symmetry. This makes viewers become aware of “unrealistic” and “digitally altered” images and compare themselves to them without knowing how much technology has affected their appearance. The problem is, it isn’t just images that are edited. The features of photo editing have been around for years. The worry is that nowadays these changes are virtually undetectable in AR filters. The more advanced the filter, the more it is difficult to tell the difference between a real look and one that has been enhanced by the filter (Rettberg, 2014).

The Impact on Self-Image

A major worry with AR filters is how they affect the image of the individual and their self-esteem. Numerous beauty filters do a bit of tinkering with the face to make it look more appealing. As time goes on the user may get used to seeing a “filtered” version of themselves and develop a preference for the filtered image rather than the image itself (Barker, 2020). It is a topic that is especially salient with teenagers and young adults who use social media extensively. Faces that are always perfect and filtered can lead to unrealistic expectations of beauty and appearance. When users look at other images with enhanced features and compare themselves to them, they may develop a dissatisfaction with their own features. Confidence and mental health can also be impacted by differences between the online “self” and the “self” in real life. As digital enhancements become commonplace, authenticity might come across as less acceptable and it may be necessary to seek validation through increasingly edited content (Coy-Dibley, 2016).

AR Filters and Digital Identity

AR filters are not just about altering appearances; they also shape the ways in which people construct and manifest their digital identities. Filters can influence the way people present themselves in their social media profiles, which can be public or private. A lot of users take into account a particular design, state of mind, or personal brand when creating their filters. This may be an expression of creativity and self-expression, but it also poses the question of authenticity. Where does personal expression end and misrepresentation begin if a person’s online identity is a reflection of their ‘real’ identity? As technology increasingly influences the way people communicate, it is important that users understand that their online identity is not just formed due to their own decisions but because of the software and algorithm that are part of the digital platforms they use (Rettberg, 2017).

What is the role of Software Literacy?

You can’t be a good software user without being software literate. Software literacy requires an awareness of the fact that technology is not neutral. Each filter, algorithm and platform feature is intended to drive a specific goal, such as higher engagement, more content creation, or more user actions. Once users know how AR filters operate, they can better consider the information they come across online. They can identify when pictures are made up and not hold themselves to unrealistic standards. Software literacy can foster an attitude of active, rather than passive, software users. As digital content constantly evolves and is curated, it is just as important to understand how as well as what it is.

Digital Citizenship in a Filtered World

Digital citizenship is about being responsible, ethical, and respectful with technology. Responsible digital citizenship for AR filters is when we are aware of how filtered content might affect our self and others. Users need to be aware of the critical aspect of thinking about the image they post or view in the digital context. The following questions can foster more conscious use of internet content: “Does this image reflect reality?,” “Could this content lead to unrealistic expectations?” Responsible digital citizens shouldn’t have no filters at all. Filters can be a fun, creative and useful storytelling and self-expression tool. But for responsible usage, there must be an understanding of their effect on perceptions of beauty, identity and authenticity. Digital citizenship and software literacy can be integrated together, allowing the users to interact with technology creatively and intelligently.

Conclusion

AR filters have revolutionized the ways of communication, expression and interaction on social media. They provide thrilling prospects for creativity and fun, but also have the potential to create a blurring of reality and digital enhancement. With the rise of filtered content, authenticity is becoming more critical than ever. Software literacy and digital citizenship both contribute to users knowing about and behaving responsibly and ethically on the internet, with software literacy helping to make people understand the technology behind AR filters. These skills can help people to be more aware and confident in digital environments. Next time you're browsing the social media, pay attention to what you're viewing. Is it a true depiction or a carefully-honed digital version of reality? Learning to question what we see may be one of the most critical digital skills today in this filtered world.

References

Barker, J. (2020). Making-up on mobile: The pretty filters and ugly implications of Snapchat. Fashion, Style & Popular Culture, 7(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1386/fspc_00015_1

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). “Digitised Dysmorphia” of the Female Body: The Re/Disfigurement of the Image. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16040. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.40

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Filtered Reality. In Seeing Ourselves Through Technology: How We Use Selfies, Blogs and Wearable Devices to See and Shape Ourselves. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137476661_2

Rettberg, J. W. (2017). Biometric Citizens: Adapting Our Selfies to Machine Vision. In Selfie Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45270-8_10

[piinkfang]

🦇💕 I MADE MY FIRST FILTER AAAAHH 🦇💕

Hope you remember these shades from 2018 because I digitalize them and turn them into a filter so you can wear them FOR REAL 🤓 Hope you guys like it as much as I loved creating it and if you use pleeeaaase tag me cos I would looove to see your pretty faces with it. You can find it on facebook and on instagram in my profile 🦇🙏🏽💕

[instazood-blog]

https://instazood.com/blog/creating-ar-filter-on-instagram-stories-through-spark-ar-studio/

[seneyhaa14]

📌 WEEK 9 POST: I Found Out My Face Apps Are Basically Tiny Cosmetic Surgeons And I Have Concerns

So week nine's lecture was about AR filters and honestly it made me look at my camera roll very differently.

AR (Augmented Reality) filters work by layering virtual things onto the real world through your camera, think dog ears, sparkles, or that smoothing effect that magically erases your pores. They've been around since the 1960s but really exploded after Snapchat and Pokémon Go in 2016.

Here's the twist though, we think of filters as "removing" bad stuff (like a coffee filter blocking grounds), but really they're adding stuff too, new skin texture, new face shapes, new "flavours" we didn't ask for. It's less about subtraction and more about quietly rewriting the image.

The lecture focused heavily on beauty and "surgery" filters, which are apparently some of the most popular ones on Instagram and Snapchat. And they're not neutral. Research has found that recommender systems on platforms like Instagram actually promote facial homogeneity among the most recommended influencers, and exposure to this kind of facial sameness has been linked to lower body image in young women (Smith et al., 2024).

And it gets wilder. There's a term called "Snapchat dysmorphia" (also called "filter dysmorphia") where people bring filtered selfies of themselves, not celebrities, to cosmetic surgeons as their reference photo. Researchers describe filter dysmorphia as a possible branch of body dysmorphic disorder, where patients already preoccupied with their appearance use idealised beauty filters and then come to believe cosmetic procedures can make them look like their filtered selves (Sadati et al., 2023). And the stats back it up: a 2021 survey by the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery found 75% of surgeons reported patients seeking procedures specifically to look better in selfies, up 18% since 2018.

There's also the whole "Instagram face" thing, that eerily similar look with big eyes, plump lips, sharp cheekbones, "ethnically ambiguous" but somehow always centring the same narrow beauty ideal. Studies analysing popular Instagram beauty filters have found that the beautification process homogenises faces, making them more similar to each other, while preserving the same underlying canon of beauty (Pena et al., 2022).

What stuck with me most is the idea of "technological empowerment" versus just... repackaged pressure. Are filters a fun way to explore identity, or just a shortcut into the same old impossible beauty standard with extra steps? Asking for a friend (me).

Anyway. Going to go squint at my selfies and wonder what's "real" now, bye.

References

Pena, A., Morales, A., Fierrez, J., Serna, I., Ortega-Garcia, J., Puente, Í., Cordova, J., & Cordova, G. (2022). Racial bias in the beautyverse. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.13939

Sadati, M. S., Mokmeli, S., & Vasigh, M. (2023). "Filter dysmorphia": An emerging phenomenon in cosmetic dermatology. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 22(2), 412–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocd.15483

Smith, R., Wang, P., Salge, C., & Shin, B. (2024). Instagram face and the algorithm: How popularity-integrated recommender systems homogenize beauty standards and lower user well-being. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4964322

Wollina, U. (2025). Exploring Snapchat dysmorphia, body dysmorphic disorder symptoms, and body trust in patients seeking aesthetic medicine procedures. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. https://academic.oup.com/asj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/asj/sjaf185/8256357

[alexkq812]

WEEK 5 - Do you use Snapchat or Instagram filters?

There is something philosophically strange happening every time you open your front-facing camera on Instagram. The face staring back at you like smoothed, symmetrised, lit from within is not quite yours. And increasingly, that might be the problem.

Augmented reality filters are not new. AR has existed as a technology since the 1960s, and its mainstream proliferation tracks almost exactly with smartphone adoption. But 2016 marked a turning point: Snapchat's face-swap filters and Pokémon Go brought AR into everyday visual culture, and the stakes shifted from novelty to normativity. What began as a playful technological gimmick dog ears, rainbow tongues has since evolved into something far more structurally significant.

Rettberg (2014) offers a useful way into this. Filters, she argues, do not simply remove — like a coffee filter blocking grounds — they also add. They slow the passage of the "raw" image through a set of aesthetic values, and what emerges on the other side is flavoured by those values. The point is not just what filters block (blemishes, asymmetry, texture), but what they actively construct: a particular standard of legibility, of what a face is supposed to look like when it enters the social media frame. And crucially, that standard is not neutral. As Lavrence and Cambre (2020) observe, what began as conspicuous, playful editing has undergone a quiet shift toward ambient editing subtle alterations so normalised that their presence is no longer obvious, and their absence becomes the aberration.

The racial politics of this are worth sitting with. The so-called "Instagram face" — that smooth, vaguely undefined ethnicity that has come to dominate platform aesthetics — is, as critics have noted, distinctly white but ambiguously ethnic: a face that launders whiteness through the aesthetics of exoticism. Beauty and "surgery" filters are among the most popular on both Instagram and Snapchat, and many of them actively promote a homogenous, racially coded standard of attractiveness that disproportionately burdens women of colour with the labour of conforming to features that were never coded from theirs.

The downstream consequences of this ambient beauty regime are now entering the clinical literature. Rajanala, Maymone and Vashi (2018) coined the term "Snapchat dysmorphia" to describe a documented shift in cosmetic surgery consultations: where patients once brought photographs of celebrities to approximate an aspirational face, they now arrive with filtered selfies — images of themselves, altered — and request that their real face be made to match. The ideal is no longer someone else. It is a version of you that has never existed outside of an algorithm. Research by Burnell, Kurup and Underwood (2021) complicates this further: more frequent filter use correlates with greater body image concerns, but not necessarily with reduced satisfaction in the moment of use. This is Perloff's (2014) "mutually reinforcing relationship" — filter use and body dissatisfaction feed each other in a loop that is difficult to interrupt, because the harm is structural rather than acute.

This is where Fisher's (2020) concept of technological deskilling becomes useful. As AR tools grow more sophisticated on the back end, they require less and less critical engagement from the user. You do not need to understand how a filter reconstructs your facial geometry to use one. That opacity — the seamless, one-tap access to a computationally altered face is precisely what concentrates power in the hands of those who build and monetise the tools, while users are left with the affective consequences of an aesthetic system they did not design and cannot fully see.

None of this forecloses the more optimistic readings. Cyberfeminist thinkers from Donna Haraway to Sadie Plant have long argued that technology carries liberatory potential — that the cyborg figure, detached from material and societal expectations of the body, opens space for identity play and self-construction outside of inherited norms. According Coy-Dibley's in 2016 concept of "positive dysmorphia" gestures at this: the possibility that digital dis/embodiment could be used subversively, to try on identities rather than simply conform to them. But the evidence suggests that, in practice, beauty filters make this difficult. Users of Snapchat's beauty filters report finding it virtually impossible to "look ugly" within the system (Hawker & Carah 2020). The subversive potential of the technology is constrained by its design — and its design reflects the values of the platforms that profit from sustained aesthetic aspiration.

The question, then, is not simply whether filters are harmful. It is:

WHO DECIDES WHAT THE FILTERS LOOKS LIKE, AND WHO BEARS THE COST OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ACHIECE IT?

References

Rettberg, J. W. (2014). Seeing Ourselves Through Technology (Ch. 2). Palgrave Macmillan.

Lavrence, C., & Cambre, C. (2020). "Do I look like my selfie?": Filters and the digital-forensic gaze. Social Media + Society.

Rajanala, S., Maymone, M., & Vashi, N. (2018). Selfies — living in the era of filtered photographs. JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery.

Burnell, K., Kurup, A. R., & Underwood, M. K. (2021). Snapchat lenses and body image concerns. Body Image, 38.

Fisher, M. (2020). The smooth life: Instagram as a platform of control. Wi: Journal of Mobile Media.

Hawker, L., & Carah, N. (2020). Snapchat's augmented reality brand culture. Continuum.

Coy-Dibley, I. (2016). Digitised dysmorphia of the female body. European Journal of Women's Studies, 23(3).

Perloff, R. M. (2014). Social media effects on young women's body image concerns. Sex Roles, 71(11–12).

[gwynnvstheworld]

Week 9 - Augmented Reality (AR) Filters, Beauty Standards & Digital Identity 

Augmented reality (AR) filters have become a common feature of regular social media use, particularly on sites like Instagram and Snapchat. As AR filters have evolved and improved, their potential to enhance pictures has reached new heights, giving users even more flexibility and creativity in their self-expression (Kumar & Agarwal, 2025). However, users' perceptions of what is attractive (the ideal self) and how they and others see them (the actual self) may shift and distort as they produce and consume such widely shared content made up of artificially enhanced "selfies," which can have detrimental effects like social media addiction and decreased life satisfaction (Kumar & Agarwal, 2025, as cited in Fastoso et al., 2021). This week's lesson emphasised how filters may profoundly influence online beauty standards and self-perception, despite the fact that they may appear innocuous or even entertaining.

One of the most intriguing concepts is that filters not only "add" effects, but also eliminate perceived flaws. The Bold Glamour filter on TikTok is a modern example, which is a sophisticated AI technology that manipulates a user's characteristics in an exaggerated way to deliver a digital "fix." by creating poreless skin, narrower noses, and flattened cheekbones (Bitmead, 2023). Numerous users expressed surprise at how different they seemed without the filter, demonstrating how quickly AR technology may alter one's perception of oneself. 

Additionally, beauty filters, often referred to as the "Instagram face”, which are created by professionally beautiful women" using a mix of injectables and beauty tools like Facetune and Photoshop (Miller, 2025, as cited in Tolentino, 2019), further reinforce excessively standardised and unrealistic standards. Selfies can be manually edited with apps like Facetune and Perfect365, which promote ongoing monitoring and "improvement" of looks. Garg et al. (2026) noted that because of digital enhancement, users feel a psychological divide between their true selves and their filtered selves, which can lead to body dissatisfaction, including lower self-esteem, increased self-objectification, and negative cycle of self-comparison.

Additionally, this has contributed to the prevalence of "Snapchat dysmorphia." which describes users who seek out cosmetic operations or injectable treatments in an effort to resemble their filtered selves (Kamleshun & Mejias, 2018). In the past, people frequently brought pictures of celebrities to cosmetic consultations, but these days, a lot of people bring modified photos of themselves, demonstrating how offline decisions are increasingly influenced by internet beauty standards.However, filters can also present chances for imaginative self-expression and identity development. This poses a crucial question: are AR filters only providing consumers with a digital shortcut to satisfy preexisting social expectations, or are they making beauty standards more unachievable?

Ultimately, AR filters are more than just fun digital tools, they actually influence how we perceive ourselves and how we think others should perceive us.

References

Bitmead, C. (2023). The problem with TikTok’s “Bold Glamour” filter. Cosmopolitan. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/beauty-hair/makeup/a43177683/tiktok-bold-glamour-filter/

Garg, A., Goel, P., Rana, N. P., & Mishra, A. (2026). AI Beauty Filters, and Appearance Self‐Esteem: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70141

Kumar, H., & Agarwal, M. N. (2025). Filtering the reality: Exploring the dark and bright sides of augmented reality–based filters on social media. Australian Journal of Management (Sage Publications Ltd.), 50(1), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962231199356

Kamleshun, R., & Mejias, S. G. (2018). Is "Snapchat Dysmorphia" a Real Issue? Cureus, 10(3), 2263.  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2263 

Miller, L. A. (2025). Build-a-Face: Homogeneity, Racialisation and Eurocentric Beautification in Instagram AR face Filters. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2025.2536157

“Portions of this site and the works within it are being produced with the intention of critique and/or educational use under Australia's ‘fair dealing’ exceptions to copyright (Section 40 & 41). However, if you feel your IP is being infringed, please contact my service provider (Tumblr) with the appropriate DMCA requests, as I, the single author, take full responsibility for the content of this site.

[digitaterrene]

AR Filters, VR Worlds & Beyond: The Next Phase of Interaction

The digital world is shifting from watching screens to stepping inside them. What began with playful AR filters on social platforms and isolated VR worlds is now evolving into a new era of interaction powered by spatial computing, AI, mixed reality, immersive design, and persistent digital environments. We are entering a future where real and virtual spaces merge — where digital experiences live around us instead of inside our phones.

The next chapter of interaction isn’t about novelty. It is about utility, immersion, emotional connection, and real-world value.

From Filters and Headsets to Spatial Ecosystems

AR filters introduced millions to augmented experiences, turning phones into windows that overlay digital creativity onto physical space. VR built fully immersive environments with avatars, spatial audio, and realistic 3D worlds. Both began as temporary moments — short sessions with limited scope.

Now the shift is from single-use effects to persistent spatial environments, always available, multi-user, and interactive.

What’s Fueling Interaction 2.0

The next wave of immersive technology is powered by: • Hardware innovation — lighter AR glasses, advanced VR headsets, better comfort and accessibility • 5G and cloud computing — real-time rendering and low-latency interaction • AI-powered personalization — adaptive content, emotion-aware interfaces, intelligent avatars • Spatial computing & AR cloud — digital objects anchored in real space, shareable and persistent • Cultural readiness — remote work, virtual collaboration, immersive learning, digital-first audiences

Immersion is becoming everyday reality, not experimental technology.

From Passive Viewing to Active Presence

The next stage transforms interaction from looking at content to inhabiting experiences. Gesture control, voice navigation, haptic feedback, spatial audio, and AI-guided environments let users feel present and connected.

The real and virtual worlds blend into a seamless hybrid where identity, storytelling, and creativity exist across dimensions.

Where This Transformation Matters Most

Immersive interaction is reshaping multiple industries: • Retail — AR try-ons, virtual stores, digital showrooms • Education & training — VR labs, simulation learning, AR field instructions • Healthcare — VR therapy, AR surgery assistance, rehabilitation environments • Social & entertainment — virtual concerts, mixed-reality events, spatial storytelling • Work & enterprise — virtual offices, digital twins, collaboration hubs • Tourism & public spaces — AR navigation, interactive city layers

Instead of watching content, users experience it.

Why Creators & Brands Should Care

• Immersive experiences build deeper emotional connection • Spatial creativity opens new business models beyond traditional advertising • UGC will evolve into co-created 3D experiences • Brand identity becomes environmental, not flat design assets • Early adoption creates competitive advantage and cultural leadership

Interaction becomes participation — not consumption.

Challenges to Overcome

Accessibility, comfort, affordability, privacy, ecosystem standards, and ethical transparency must evolve. Success demands value-first immersive experiences, not just visual spectacle.

The Future of Interaction

The next phase will be defined by: • Mainstream AR glasses • Persistent spatial digital layers • Hybrid real–virtual social spaces • AI-driven adaptive worlds • Community-designed 3D environments

The journey from filters to full worlds has already begun. The future of digital interaction is immersive, persistent, intelligent, and shared.

We are moving from scrolling to living inside the experience.

[teamjacksoncreativehubs]

hey guys