Altered-image ratings tell you just how fake photos are

Altered-image ratings tell you just how fake photos are

www.newscientist.com

Airbrushed images of models and celebrities have already been linked with eating disorders and body dissatisfaction. Now such images could come with a warning, thanks to a system for rating degrees of photograph manipulation.

Politicians in countries such as the UK, France and Norway have already called for labels on retouched images, but the publishing industry has so far resisted the change since nearly all photos are tweaked in some way.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.cs.dartmouth.edu

Imagine that.

Imagine a small but distiguishable number or index at the bottom of any media picture... and this number or symbol tells you just how radically the photo has been made to look "beautiful" (or "ugly" for that matter.)

Included in the "additional News Links" is a very telling demonstration of just how "manipulative" the media has been.

As a group, the industry which 'sells' us the images we love to love are so dead set against this that here in America the topic isn't even addressed in any meaningful way.

Meanwhile our children get dosed with preconceptions about what 'beauty' is and how it can be achieved ... if you can pay.

Politicans, and their ads, all tweaked for impact. Negative ads? Also tweaked....

They wouldn't want to fess up to that now would they?

www.newscientist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Isn't every photo touched up these days. I have trouble believing any photo in a magazine/newspaper hasn't been messed around with.

I don't know if I agree with this
There's something called creative licensing, that should allow you to alter such images for marketing purposes

People should not be dumb, they should KNOW these images are retouched, where are the parents?

If you see some of the comments I see on twitter from followers of musicians, you wouldn't believe it, and it's coming from young girls.

But rather than this, I would prefer if cosmetics be classified as a drug!
And yes i'm serious

You take makeup or lipstick it eats away the skin and you just end up needing more and more of it
Secondly you feel like you need it

So that's a physical and psychological dependancy, BOTH!

Classify it as a drug, creative marketing however should be allowed without as long as it doesn't go too far

reply to post by Maxmars


i would go one stage further and ban any editing beyond crop and curves

I am torn on this as any artwork would then be diminished by the appearance of the number, however it would solve our problem of recognizing some hoax photos of UFOs and such.

I disagree with this. I do this for a living and there should not have to be a number indicating how edited the picture was.

Almost very photo is manipulated, whether it is just exposure adjustments or clean-up's. Skin softening is almost an every picture deal with a woman, as with bringing out their eyes more, that what makes professional pictures look professional...

If people can go see movies and tell their kids they are fake and just actors why can they not tell their kids there are professional photographers and editors working on every picture?

Pred...

I sure would like to see this implemented in on-line magazines (especially the "entertainment" ones) where it shows picture after picture of glamorous sports or thespian celebrities......

Just a little button that says (raw) or (processed).. one click... and then you would realize just what you've been 'sold' as a role-model....

As for art.... well... some might contend the "art" of photography died after digital replaced film - after that it mostly became a matter of software rather than a photographer's perception.

No offense intended pred....

Reminds me of when people freaked out when they found out the ice cream in the Dairy Queen commercials was actually lard, due to ice cream melting too fast under the hot lights. Or the effort they make to have your cheeseburger look like a masterpiece on the sign, and you get a flattened turd when you order it. Speaking of which, I loved the scene in "Falling Down" where he goes into the fast food place and wants a burger. Classic!

It's just another facet of our fake society, the same way politicians tell you with a smile the exact opposite of what they realy think or how the banking/financial system is above the law. Or how we rain death on people in the name of freedom and justice. It's all just part and parcel of the whole stinking mess 'albeit on a smaller scale'. Everything we see, hear and do is manufactured so someone somewhere can make an extra few bucks Welcome to capitalism run amok.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I sure would like to see this implemented in on-line magazines (especially the "entertainment" ones) where it shows picture after picture of glamorous sports or thespian celebrities......

Just a little button that says (raw) or (processed).. one click... and then you would realize just what you've been 'sold' as a role-model....

As for art.... well... some might contend the "art" of photography died after digital replaced film - after that it mostly became a matter of software rather than a photographer's perception.

No offense intended pred....

edit on 29-11-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

No offense taken, but, no matter how much you polish a turd, it's still just a turd.

You can fix any photo, that's true, but you sacrifice time. Nobody loves spending countless hours fixing a photo rather than taking a photo right and spending as little as 30 min. The art of photography is alive and well, jus flick through a respectable magazine (ie. National Geographic) and you will see it has done nothing but get better since the digital revolution.

What most people do not understand is photo manipulation was done with film too. It was just in the darkroom. They did a bunch of adjustments in there that we still do today, such as increase contrast, exposure and colors before the development process. Their processes in the darkroom was close to our software of today. That was the beauty of it, you had to be good in the darkroom as well as take good photo's.

When someone shoots raw, there are no adjustments done to a picture, you have no choice but to develop in a software program, unless you want a non sharp grey-ish image. How your photos are developed are part of your 'artistic work.'

Women get portrait shots done all the time, and if you were to show them one 'fixed' and one just plain they will always ask for the fixed. There is also a rule among professional photographers that no matter how much you have done to make the woman look perfect, you always say she was easy to do gentle retouching too.

That's what these photographers job is, to make women look beautiful.

Pred...

I suppose this is good news for ATS. Perhaps we will see a lessening of Chupacabra/Bigfoot threads! Just assume everything is fake and you'll be fine.

How about a FOX news touch up? What would this be rated?

Predator hit the nail on the head. I'm a pro photographer too and I'd say less than 1% of my images are untouched. Yes its possible to get a good image straight out of the camera these days, but good doesn't get you noticed. You have to be great which requires putting your own style into an image.

I don't like the idea of rating how much an image is edited. I think its better for the photographer's business if the audience believes that he or she can go out, press the shutter, and create an amazing image. They don't need to know how much work goes into the final product. Let their be some mystique in how we arrive at our final product.

I propose instead of a rating system, that all magazines containing edited images should have a disclaimer saying that they are not meant to represent reality. They should be considered art, which is what digital photography has become for those of use that know what we're doing, in my humble opinion of course.

Marketing people are trying to sell us thing's what are based on lie's, You tell us to buy something by lying about how the actual product looks and what it does.
It has given men false hope all over the world (wonderbra)
A great man (RIP) says it better than I ever could.

www.youtube.com...

I hate advertising, you can't walk down the street without it being in your eyesight, it's everywhere you can't escape it.
I would gladly pay 5% more tax to have no ad's on my computer,TV or in the high street.
If you have to advertise tell the truth don't airbrush models face's when you are advertising makeup, don't add a fake hairweave when advertising shampoo and show us what the ready meal really looks like when I heat it up ffs.
Watch the video and take the guy's advice....rant over later xxxx

When it comes to advertising it's all touched up. Biggest amongst the modelling industry is car industry. A "photograph" of a car might not even be a photo. It might just as well be a 3d model. The scenery can be composited from tens of different photographs. Starting to rate these is bit silly though since anyone with half a brain should figure it out for themselves.

I also disagree with this, it should be obvious by now that celeb photos are faked. The problem is what about adjusting curves, levels etc? All my photography goes through Photoshop whether it is to correct lighting or remove a lens flare and you will have trouble finding any image in a mag that has not been edited. If this applies to more than just celeb photos then it is ridiculous, I do not read mags but it is like the government have to feed us with a spoon and babies bottle sometimes. Soon they will be warning not to turn pages to fast to avoid paper cuts on every page.

Oh and I better warn everyone! You might be suprised but my profile pic was edited, I am not that green with text over my face so dont go painting yourself.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Marketing people are trying to sell us thing's what are based on lie's, You tell us to buy something by lying about how the actual product looks and what it does.
It has given men false hope all over the world (wonderbra)

A great man (RIP) says it better than I ever could.

www.youtube.com...

I hate advertising, you can't walk down the street without it being in your eyesight, it's everywhere you can't escape it.
I would gladly pay 5% more tax to have no ad's on my computer,TV or in the high street.
If you have to advertise tell the truth don't airbrush models face's when you are advertising makeup, don't add a fake hairweave when advertising shampoo and show us what the ready meal really looks like when I heat it up ffs.
Watch the video and take the guy's advice....rant over later xxxx

There are ways to aviod ads on your comp if you search. I am doing a advertising segment for my graphic design degree and I hate it, in the future I suspect we will have adverts playing in our heads and while we are asleep.

If that ever happens Iam going on a rampage
Another thing what annoys me at the moment are the hand sanitizers which have a sensor on so you don't have to press the pump that squirts out liquid soap.
They say "Lots of germs on that pump so get this electronic sensor sanitizer and you don't have to touch the dirty pump" well Iam going to wash my hands anyway straight after I have touched the pump ffs.
Do marketers think we are that stupid?......yup course they do.
So to sum up yes I agree put a number on the ad's saying how real they are.
Also I have ad blockers etc, but when a site has an inbuilt ad what scares the crap outa me when the sounds blare's out grrrrrrr

Doctored photos are not just for "beautification." They are also for deception, such as for concealing a double. Here is documentation of "faulsified" photos of Paul McCartney:

Faulsifying evidence: photo-tampering & illusion creation