Warning labels on airbrushed photos?

That's what French consumer protection groups are proposing.
If you ask me, it's a good idea.

France considers warning labels on airbrushed photos

Originally posted by Vanitas


That's what French consumer protection groups are proposing.
If you ask me, it's a good idea.

France considers warning labels on airbrushed photos

"Warning in reality this actress looks like an Old Sea Hag, not really lovely.
This photo was retouched!"

No it think it is silly.
I want to see what we wish we looked like not what we really look like.
It is entertainment.

typo

[edit on 5-10-2009 by cindymars]

reply to post by cindymars


Personally I think it's actually necessary, especially considering how many psychologically vulnerable people (especially the very young) tend to model their view of the world based purely on images.

reply to post by Vanitas


Well someone agreed with you. They gave you a star but no opinion.
I think parents should tell their children even show them what airbrushing is about. Hey there are paparazi photos of celebs that look pretty bad.

It is really not going to happen. Sorry, too much money in those illusions.
However I don't really care either way.

Before the days of Photoshop, professional photographers did the same magic tricks with Bokeh, Overexposure, Soft Focus, Double-exposure, Lighting, not to mention all of the tricks of the trade would do in the Dark Room when developing their film (like hand-tinting parts of the photo). All Photoshop has done is make it easier for non-Pros to do the same tricks. However, photography has never been a "True" representation of the subject photographed.

Take for example the classic "MySpace Pose" that is ubiquitous on the Internet. With any fixed-lens camera, like a cellphone, you can make your subject not look obese by taking a shot from 30 degrees above, and do it where you have unnatural lighting, like in a bathroom, and you make your subject look like they have flawless skin. Those tricks aren't done with Photoshop, but those photos are equally false representations of the subjects in the photos.

We have "Objects In The Rearview Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Really Are" warnings because of safety reasons. However, having a disclaimer on each and every photograph saying the photography equivalent is ridiculous.

Maybe we should also tattoo a warning on the forehead of all Models and Stars that says "Idolizing this figure may lead to eating disorders and an unrealistic self body-image".

Everyone knows images are digitally altered before they go to print. You can't assuage blame and guilt by putting a warning label on them. The problem the impressionable have doesn't have to do with whether they know the images are digitally altered or not, but because those who are impressionable commit idolatry on the subject in the photo.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by fraterormus]

Everyone knows images are digitally altered before they go to print.

You would think!
But, as amazing and in-credible as this may sound, I know for a fact that even highly educated people - and I am thinking specifically of a university professor who taught visual arts, of all things - do NOT know to what extent images are manipulated. They have no idea whatsoever, especially about BODY altering (which is relatively recent - previously it was deemed highly "unethical"; now, it seems, anything goes).

Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but I won't be losing any sleep over this - that's for sure.

reply to post by cindymars


Oh, I agree. The problem is, the parents themselves have no idea.

As I was saying in my previous post (first reply), even visually sophisticated people have no idea to what extent images are altered; and most of the "ordinary" magazine readers (featuring prominently teenagers) are still totally oblivious to the fact that bodies - their outlines, skin tone, etc. - are being visually altered, too.




[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

reply to post by Vanitas


Well this may be good in that it will bring it into focous. LOL
Meaning the young will be made aware of retouching of photos.

I live in LA and attempted acting when I was young. I can tell you that I payed extra for retouching.

Don't teens watch "America's Next Top Model" ? Because Tyra always talks about retouching. LOL

Originally posted by cindymars
reply to post by Vanitas

 

Well this may be good in that it will bring it into focous. LOL
Meaning the young will be made aware of retouching of photos.

That's precisely what's good about it, in my opinion.

Don't teens watch "America's Next Top Model" ? Because Tyra always talks about retouching. LOL

Funny you should mention Tyra...
Even I (being well aware of the true extent of retouching, I mean) could not believe my eyes when I saw a programme showing how they had "enhanced" her figure (think radical nip & tuck PLUS lengthening of the legs.)

And I believe Katie Couric's figure and extremities were also digitally remodelled and lengthened - on air, no less.








[edit on 5-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Everything goes trough more or less photoshop before it ends up in the print. Who decides what level of photoshop is considered 'airbrushing'? Images go trough minimum of cropping, levelling, exposure correction, color correction and dust removal when necessary.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I think it's quite safe to rely on the technical judgment and definitions of the industry itself.

What we're talking here is an ensemble of techniques that cannot be confused with simple cropping and other preliminary (pre-publishing) editing. Its only purpose is to alter (not just "enhance", even though this cute euphemism if often used instead) the appearance of the subject(s) in such a way that the subject(s)' physical appearance - including measurements, etc. - becomes substantially different from their "live" appearance.

(I'll refer anyone who is interested in this to the recent cover photos featuring Angelina Jolie and, even more recently, Kate Winslet or Jennifer Aniston, where you can see that individual features - such as the nose - were altered in size and proportion to the rest of the face, while the body was visually lengthened and "slimmed" down.
Sorry, I don't have any links ready. )

And, as I said before, personally I couldn't care less about this.
But considering the incredible (although understandable) lack of insight on the part of many bedazzled readers, it would be only fair to include a statement that digital alteration was used.
That's all.


LATER ADDITION:

About the huge difference between "normal" cosmetic editing and "airbrushing" (as opposed to simple "retouching") - and the relative importance of this issue - see this article.

Magazine admits airbrushing Winslet's image

And this:

Spot the doctored photo

(The links were sent to me by one of my co-bloggers.
Thanks, Lynx! )


















[edit on 6-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Here ia a link
www.glennferon.com...

And another
bumpshack.com...

New York Times
www.nytimes.com...

How about the world around me has to always wear rose colored glasses so that I always look good. I like that idea. LOL

[edit on 6-10-2009 by cindymars]

reply to post by cindymars


Thanks!
I hope many will learn from this (even though they might never admit it. ;-)

How about the world around me has to always wear rose colored glasses so that I always look good. I like that idea. LOL

I second the motion!

OR... you could wear a pink lamp-shade (like the ones they had in Maxim's) on your head!




[edit on 6-10-2009 by Vanitas]

I think most people already know that photos you see in magazines etc. are airbrushed. Teenagers and young adults are even airbrushing themselves for sites like myspace all the time. I know because I am one.

Ideally, it would be nice if airbrushing would stop completely so none of us would feel that pressure. But that's just not gonna happen any time soon, everyone wants to look perfect.

Originally posted by HarvestMoon
I think most people already know that photos you see in magazines etc. are airbrushed.

Yes - or rather, they think they know.
What they do not know (see my previous posts) is to what extent they are altered.

Personally, I find alteration - not simple "enhancing" - slightly ridiculous and demeaning (and would NEVER consent to having my photos altered).

But there is an important point to be made about cosmetic enhancing (AKA "retouching").
In my experience, many people - and this, amazingly, includes people working on TV - have no idea about the true extent of the distorting effects of camera and lighting. Specifically, they don't know that, in order to look more or less like your "live" self on TV, you HAVE to wear make up to compensate for the distorting effect of the camera and lighting.

In other words, even people who do not wear make up in their daily lives would have to wear make up if they wanted to look on TV like they REALLY look in everyday life.










[edit on 6-10-2009 by Vanitas]

Another example just showed up today.
See link for details.
www.thefirstpost.co.uk...

reply to post by cindymars


Thank you.
And then, there is this one, of course: not only ridiculous, but outright idiotic.

I rest my case...