TBD on Ning

Reprinted without permission

Would You Support the Regulation of Photoshopping?
by Style.com, on Mon Aug 3, 2009 12:13pm PDT

Twiggy quips that Olay’s Definity range is her “secret for brighter-looking eyes” in a new ad campaign for the company’s antiaging line, but the 59-year-old model’s strangely wrinkle- and blemish-free skin suggests that other covert operations might also be at work.

At least that’s what one governing body in the U.K. thinks. In what’s poised to be the biggest uproar yet over the ongoing issue of Photoshopping in mass media, members of the British Parliament are calling for a ban on digitally altering ads aimed at children under 16, and disclosure of these modifications in ads aimed at adults, reports Jezebel. The house’s more liberal types have even gone as far as to recommend compulsory “media literacy” lessons to teach kids that such images should not be viewed as realistic portrayals of beauty.

Seeing as how government legislation on advertising encroaches on free-speech territory, we’re curious whether similar regulations would ever fly stateside—and furthermore, if they did, would you support them?

(NOTE FROM SUUSE: I've attached the image to which the article referred. It's not a photo--it's a painting. And not a very good one.)

Tags: beauty, censorship, photoshop

Views: 9


Replies to This Discussion

Oh. Dear me. The British are at it yet again.
First off - here is a recent picture of Twiggy - http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/KVMCMzk1feD/Marks+Spencer+Kick+start...

I'll be back in a tick - have to go grab a link . . .
Shot. Just lost a post. Puff! Will try again later. Darn! ;(
I absolutely believe that this would be a step in the right direction--and I say that as someone who makes percentage of my income retouching photos. I take away spots/zits, to be sure--but I also erase lines, plump lips, slim waists, lengthen legs, streak--and lengthen--hair, and change the colour of shirts...you name it. There is NO WAY that any skin care product or bit of make-up will EVER do for you what I can. Well, what I can do for a photo of you.

And THAT'S the truth.
I am vehemently against any form of government censorship - albeit I am in favour of ratings, restrictions, and the preventative apps. in place to prevent children from accessing that which is not suitable for their eyes or ears.

Here is a picture of Twiggy - yet again - almost always with her sun glasses on. Much more realistic. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1062949/Dressed-Twiggy...

I think “media literacy” lessons to teach kids that such images should not be viewed as realistic portrayals of beauty " is a wise idea that is long overdue. I also think that "disclosure of these modifications in ads aimed at adults" and children should be a mandatory requirement, and in this - I would not have a problem with it being a governmental requirement.

Photo-shopping - the art of re-touching/air brushing/enhancing images - all of this has been with us for quite some time . I have to wonder - why the sudden hugh and cry? Mind you - it is because of how women are digitally enhanced that we women perhaps feel the need to constantly consider ways in which to retain a more youthful look.

But all out censorship? That idea unnerves me. Here is a bit of the British - carrying it all a bit too far - to consider: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/5834646/Philip-Pu...
"Philip Pullman, the best selling author, will be banned from reading his books in schools because he refuses to be vetted for a new anti-paedophile database that he said "assumes my guilt".

Lately the British have been on rather a mad push to regulate everything government can get their paws on - from mandatory licensing of one's goldfish to the push to embed all with a micro-id-chip.
I'm not advocating censorship. I *am* advocating the advertising equivalent of "informed consent".

Call it "media literacy" or what you will:




(By the way--neither of these PSP videos show excellent work--but they do show the *kind* of work that can go into "editing" an image.)
I *am* advocating the advertising equivalent of "informed consent".

Right on. That's my line of thought too.

Fascinating videos. I am so grateful for the ability to re-touch a personal photo a bit, that I can't imagine being restricted personally, but when I look at how very marked someone of a certain age - can be made to look 30 years younger - it irritates me, because it sets up such unrealistic expectations right 'round. Whatever happened to "truth in advertising".

And children - need to see things as they really are first - before seeing things as others may want them to see things.
While I agree that there's no crime in going out to retrieve one's dry cleaning without spending two hours on hair and makeup first, the writer seems more concerned with the liberal--ok, egregious--use of PSP (Photoshop) on the photo in the ad.

I've lived in NYC and LA--and no, no one looks fantastic 24/7. And yes, whereas men seem to slip by without criticism, women are fair game for the media if they step out the door.

In my book, sexism is sexism. Period.
What makes you think I don't work on photos of men?

There's an enormous amount of retouching on photos of men as well--we do facelifts, we do that extra million crunches for them on their abs, we recontour arms and legs and lift buns. Oh, yeah.

Strangely enough, there have been a few articles about men spending more time in the skin-care aisles and at the dermatologists/cosmetic surgeons, ferinstance:


I'll throw my say in here for whatever its worth. I think its time that we returned to a semblence of reality in the media. You can almost guarantee that any photographs of a celebrity or model in magazines & advertising is not going to be the real thing. Its a constant reinforcement to women (in particular) that who we are, what we look like is not acceptable. It's damaging to the psyche & a sending the wrong message to the younger generation. The result of this trend has been leading to so many issues its almost impossible to list here. I think its a tough enough world to live in without the added pressures of this projected image of perfection.

Wouldn't it be nice if the focus was more on how to be better human beings, live more fulfilling lives....
Hi Ladies, Diana asked me to post this here, it is a blog I posted earlier today.

sorry, to re-post this I just saw that it was already on. Still, it is a great demonstration of the illusions we are feed daily.

I took a subscription to "More" magazine in hopes that I would get to see the real face of my peers. I swear the first few issues were fairly realistic, but now you might as well be looking at "Glamor"

So, who is their audience? Could we make a difference if we collectively called for ads and magazines that were true to life?

I think a big part of it, is that many people who have "artistic" power over these things are in their twenties, so, they don't get it. YET
Don't you dare apologize. There's nothing more apt to set me off than that double standard, but you've said it better than I.

I have an acquaintance of the male persuasion who frequently posts photos or youtube links of his pop culture crushes--all of whom are delicious little tidbits of the waif/naif variety and I have yet to find one who looks older than 30. He's over 50.

Given my career trajectory, I *know* some of these women--and if he were to see them before 3-4 hours of makeup and hair and lighting and filtering and retouching...well, let's just say that this fella is buying a well-manufactured image...besides being so deep he could drown in a bottle cap.

Sometimes I regret all the NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) I've signed--because I have the before photos. Are these women beautiful *before*? Eye of the beholder--but certainly NOT the way the are when we all get finished with them!

What's telling is that the folks who work in the industries are used to seeing these women "before"--but the millions of people who only see the "after" buy the images as reality.

FERINSTANCE: Heidi Klum *is* gorgeous--but she does NOT look like the VS ads. Those ads are of some heightened, idealized version of an already-gorgeous REAL woman...but NO ONE looks like those ads in real life.

And while we're on the topic--can we please storm the offices of Hearst Publications and have a "chat" with "Vogue" editor Anna Wintour? The magazine constantly uses 12-13-14 year olds tarted up to look like they're legal age--which really ought to be illegal. Let's talk "child pornography!"

I LOVE the National Enquirer--I only buy it for the photos ;) --for printing unflattering photos of these media goddesses. It's the only gasp of reality we get sometimes.




© 2024   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service