Interesting: Britain wants to ban Airbrushed Images

[Rob C]

Ah, the catch-all phrase for defending actions which are way out of proportion.

In case you were not trolling, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children that Twiggy doesn't look like that in real life, or that Pamela Anderson's body is augmented.

Feppe, you are not trying to tell me that Pamela Anderson is not 100% natural, are you?

Rob C

[feppe]

On a closely related note, a study compared the body image of Iranian women (who have little to no access to western media with skewed body images) and those in Los Angeles.

Choice quote:

The Los Angeles and Tehran groups revealed a similar prevalence of eating disorder symptoms. There were very few differences between the two groups in symptoms of eating disorders and body image concerns. In the few instances where differences did emerge, the differences suggested that the Tehran participants had more symptoms of eating disorders than the Los Angeles Iranians.

[E_Edwards]

Just for fun, suppose enough members of parliament were coerced into voting for a ban, not difficult since they all follow like sheep and vote as they are told.

How would it be enforced? Big team of forensic experts to prove that pixels had been altered with intent to create an 'airbrush' effect? How do you define airbrushing? How can you prove that pixels have been altered for this purpose and not, for instance, to bring about localised contrast.

Next step is a law to forbid any alterations whatsoever in fashion, advertising, public magazines and websites.

You would need to be compelled by law to keep an original image just as it is taken by the camera, difficult again, exif data can easily be changed. There would have to be another law that would prohibit the change of the exif data, this is now getting really ridiculous.

Another law to prohibit the use and possession of exif altering programs.

These politicians don't live in the real world and they won't stop using any excuses (sometimes well meaning) to remove liberties with the pretext of protecting our children, protecting motorists, protecting smokers, drinkers, protecting women, preventing discrimination, terrorism, protecting, preventing, protecting, preventing...until there is nothing left that you can do, you start to suffocate from over-regulation and you want to scream and you cease to be a human...

You suddenly realise you are no better than a caged animal.

What's worse, Vogue is covered in zits and flab and crooked noses and wrinkles and uneven lips and you think, wow, so that's what this Autumn sexy fashion is all about.

I'll buy it, it's so exciting!

[Rob C]

In case you were not trolling, it is the responsibility of parents to teach their children that Twiggy doesn't look like that in real life, or that Pamela Anderson's body is augmented.

Feppe

This lady had no need of augmentation nor airbrush; September, 1966.

Rob C

[feppe]

Feppe

This lady had no need of augmentation nor airbrush; September, 1966.

Rob C

Indeed - although I'm sure there's quite a bit of airbrushing in the most famous photos of Brigitte Bardot, as well as other celebrities before her and since.

And I've always been partial to Ingrid Bergman

[Rob C]

And I've always been partial to Ingrid Bergman

Sorry, can´t help you there!

;-)

Rob C

[gss]

It is clearly another front in the photographers' famous campaign of terror against the citizens of Britain.

On a more serious note, how would they regulate this?  I keep seeing "No More Photoshop!" in these articles, which is akin to telling film photographers that they may not use developer. Must we switch to shooting only jpegs?  Must we only use C1 or Lightroom, or perhaps a specially crippled version of Photoshop with no layers, plug-ins, clone brush, healing brush, spherize, liquify, etc... which automatically watermarks the final image with a "girl-safe" logo?

[Morgan_Moore]

The way to protect children is surely to give them good education - the tools for getting through life - and that could include a module on retouching as part of bioloogy, sex education or general studies the libdems are supposed to be hot on education but this is a total no go - how do you police it and how much would it cost to police and how much education could that fund?

I do think that there is an argument for creating a symbol a D with a ring aroung it a bit like the copyright C with a ring round it for differenciation between digitally altered and not

That would be most use for news, montages, etc

For news I never do what I couldnt have done in the dark room, dodge, burn, and spot

S

[ziocan]

After reading other colleagues opinion , I still think that with overly retouched cosmetic photos we are entering the domain of false advertising. Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image.

BTW I'm not a woman and I make half of my income from cosmetic images also for advertising, yet I think that misleading the public portraying a 60 years old woman and retouching her down to 40
it is "false advertising" as much as showing the iphone downloading a web page in less than 1 second. The iphone ad was withdrawn and rightly so.

On a previous post, I stated that doing cosmetic advertising ala "Twiggy ad", shows the lack of creativity and education by the Art Directors and Clients who advertise their products on such a manner. There is nothing to be proud  or artistic on taking a celebrity, putting her in front of a boring beauty light, (they are all the bloody same) and then asking the "monkey" to clean the pimples, wrinkles and running a few "blurring" photoshop technique to smooth the skin.

[tesfoto]

After reading other colleagues opinion , I still think that with overly retouched cosmetic photos we are entering the domain of false advertising. Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image.

It is a great misunderstanding to think that photography represent reality.

Have a look at some great artwork here:

http://www.lorettalux.de/

http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php


Cheers

tes

[blansky]

But the point is not that photographers have always retouched to some extent or have always manipulated images, the point is not even about the photographers at all. The point is about the advertisers misrepresenting their products.

I don't care if you retouch to make people look like mannequins, I care that advertisers CAN SAY that their products will make you look like mannequins.

How to test the ads? Prove it before you advertise it. Just like every other product on the market. And if the product is misrepresented, you're opened up to law suits and fines.


Michael

[Justinr]

Three things to understand here-

1. There is a general election due in Britain next year.

2. The Liberal Democrats are the perpetual also rans of the UK's political system and are always desperate for publicity.

3. Britain is presently suffering a political mindset that can not see a problem without wanting to ban it or control it or record it on some fantasy database. And if no problem exists to justify further banning, controlling or recording of the nations inhabitants then one is simply invented.

The great and the good that run the place have simply lost the plot and now see it as their duty to keep the whole country under watchful eye and oppressive thumb. Don't go there, it has become an awful place.

Justin.

[ziocan]

It is a great misunderstanding to think that photography represent reality.

Have a look at some great artwork here:

http://www.lorettalux.de/

http://www.azizcucher.net/1994_4.php


Cheers

tes

Maybe my written english and syntax are not god enough, but you did not understand what I have written.
On my statement is written clearly, "Especially when they pretend to be realistic and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image".
On the case of cosmetic advertising, the images we are debating and i'm referring to are not artistic at all, like the Twiggy advertisement and a latest Monica Bellucci ad (for Dior, I believe). They are simply representing 2 women on a state pretending to be real, when they are not. those images are not a "metaphor", they are simply a gimmick, as fake as a fake dollar bill and they are not a clear artistic interpretation of an image, like the images you posted the link too.
The image you posted are not misleading, they are a "clear artistic interpretation of something".
Lorettalux images looks like drawings and do not pretend to be real and are not made with a purpose of selling any product.

linking those images you simply proved my point.

I do not have anything against "artistic image manipulation" as on the images you showed. that is actually great work.
Bellucci and Twiggy images are just a cheat.

[ziocan]

The way to protect children is surely to give them good education - the tools for getting through life - and that could include a module on retouching as part of bioloogy, sex education or general studies the libdems are supposed to be hot on education but this is a total no go - how do you police it and how much would it cost to police and how much education could that fund?

I do think that there is an argument for creating a symbol a D with a ring aroung it a bit like the copyright C with a ring round it for differenciation between digitally altered and not

That would be most use for news, montages, etc

For news I never do what I couldnt have done in the dark room, dodge, burn, and spot

S

For example, on many real estate web sites, where they shows 3d renderings of houses not built yet, they normally write that it is not a real photo, but an "artist rendering".

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Obviously, we need to outlaw all airbrushing.

Then, we need to outlaw Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and their ilk.

Next, we should outlaw all cosmetics, because they only distort reality.

And then, of course, we really must outlaw all use of clothing, because it obscures any person's true appearance!     

[cmi]

Obviously, we need to outlaw all airbrushing.

Then, we need to outlaw Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and their ilk.

Next, we should outlaw all cosmetics, because they only distort reality.

And then, of course, we really must outlaw all use of clothing, because it obscures any person's true appearance!   

No. Its obvious: The line must be drawn at digital. Cosmetics, lifestyle, etc. support natural beauty. Digital distracts, distorts. Regulating the use of false digital images will ultimately lead again to the more free, more honest, more open society we once knew. This neccessary regulation, as many others, only reinforces our true values which we all believe in. Proven values are the best, so we won't tolerate this change. This is going too far. We won't tolerate the digital change.

We resist to go.



(sorry, coudnt' resist either...)

[tesfoto]

false digital images

Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.

My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.

Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.

Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.

Cheers

tes

[Rob C]

Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.

My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.

Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.

Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.

Cheers

tes

Actually, you are mistaken.

All you have to do is find some old fashion mags from the late 50s, the 60s and 70s and look at the editorial photography. Consider the work of Frank Horvat, Jeanloup Sieff, David Bailey, Helmut Newton et al for a moment and you will see all the grain you need to convince yourself that there was no untoward distortion of the female skin into plastic even though Sieff´s 21mm on a Leica wasn´t the most kind thing you can do to a woman. If you want to say that perspective (with the camera) changes reality, then even there you are leaving yourself open to possible error: perspective depends on position, so reality via your eye is just the same from those odd angles as through a camera - does your eye distort reality, then?

All anyone can truthfully say is that fashion is a world and a law unto itself. It has a language that most women and some photographers learn, some better than others. That´s pretty much all there is to it.

If you want to kick the ass of advertising, be my guest; as with Ms Leibovitz and her covers, the real photography exists inside the pages, not on the cover nor in the ads. Different species of animal.

Rob C

[Justinr]

Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty - old or new.

My guess is you cant, they are all altered one way or the other, light, perspective, look, makaup, the list is endless.

Perhaps one should look at this industry as one looks at theater - not representing reality at all.

Digital images just adds another layer to something that was not real in the first place.

Cheers

tes

So very true. fashion is just another form of escapism. Does it really matter? Our species has an innate desire to appear attractive to the opposite sex (stronger amongst the female half) Fashion simply magnifies and distorts this trait  often grossly misrepresenting what is good and worthy in a potential mate. But hey, there's money to be made and people to be exploited so lets just get on with it.

Justin.

[cmi]

Interesting, but I chalenge everyone to come op with some "true" images of fashion or beauty ...

I meant it as a contradiction. //edit: So basically I guess Im agreeing with you