« Next entry

Mid-Day Snack »

People Are Talking Aug 3, 2009 @ 12:58pm

Regulating Retouching?

Kate Winslet is known for lashing out against magazines that Photoshop her body, and now another British beauty’s retouchings have people feeling uncomfortable.

The images of Twiggy’s smooth face in recent Olay Definity (an anti-aging cream) advertisements have moved members of the Parliament to call for action, which we learned about thanks to our friends over at Jezebel.

The Liberal Democrats in Parliament want to ban Photoshopping completely on advertisements aimed at children (those under sixteen), and place disclaimers stating how much Photoshopping was used on all other ads. The politicians who suggested these changes are hoping that this could boost young adults’—specifically girls’—self-esteem, or more accurately, lessen the negative comparison a young girl could make between her body and the perfectly sleek and slim body of a model in a magazine.

In a recent LA Times article on the subject, Professor Montana Miller cut right to the point: if advertisers make us feel bad about our bodies, we are more likely to buy their product that will allegedly make our bodies or faces look better.

Advertising is about making money, not making us feel better. We can get behind disclaimers, but bans seem to infringe somewhat on the company’s rights. Should it be the government’s job to protect us from feeling bad about ourselves?

Another suggestion the British politicians made is to implement “media literarcy” lessons that would teach kids about the behind-the-scenes hijinks of the magazine world. If people were educated and aware of the visual tricks, they would be less likely to buy an anti-aging cream for which the spokeswomen had her wrinkles removed by something other than the product for sale. Money talks: if sales were driven lower, then maybe a company would reconsider their imaging techniques, instead of simply having it forced on them.

—AMANDA JEAN BOYLE

« Next entry

Fashionista Main

Mid-Day Snack »

posted by deathofadame

Aug 03, 2009 1:09PM

Will they be able to stop advertisers from Photoshopping...i doubt it, but I agree that they should put a disclaimer on the ad stating how much photoshop they used. It's a shame that girls are trying to achieve this image of beauty that's not real. It's thrown in our faces so much it's hard not to compare. A reality check for teens would be welcoming I'm sure.

http://vinestreet.blogspot.com

posted by nycshoegal

Aug 03, 2009 1:25PM

i don't think banning photoshop altogether is reasonable or necessary. a little blemish removal here and there never hurt anyone, however the ads nowadays really are out of control surreal and a disclaimer indicating how much was artificially fixed would be a great reality check for all.

posted by guest

Aug 03, 2009 1:35PM

i like this. i like this a lot.

i dont think it will be banned altogether. magazines are made possible mostly by advertising $$. if the advertisers cant tweek their images at all, they wont advertise a product/item for which results are hard to see. if there could be regulations put in place though, that would be great. good for britain.

on a side note, jesus twiggy, get widdit. you should know better

posted by rickeyg303

Aug 03, 2009 1:50PM

maybe photographers could go back to the old fashioned way of doing things, and actually light the model appropriately as to show off their best features. Lighting makes all the difference in photography. But it makes sense to photoshop this type of ad, who wants to see an old wrinkly face next to anti-aging cream? They should just bypass the use of a model all together and sell the cream on it's own, and not lie to the viewers.

posted by guest

Aug 03, 2009 2:32PM

I say they just put disclaimers on ads that Photoshop a model's body. Facial alterations aren't that big of a deal- it's mostly just disguising wrinkles or pimples. But photoshopping a model or celebrity to make them skinnier/ give them bigger boobs/ etc.. is a major problem.

posted by givingrief

Aug 03, 2009 3:04PM

I agree that there should be a disclaimer but determining "how much" photoshopping has been done may be tough. Perhaps just a disclaimer stating which parts have been touched would suffice. Some of these ads nowadays are really disturbing. I saw a photo of Christy Turlington and she didn't even look human anymore. Her neck had been severely elongated and her skin was devoid of any detail, and she is beautiful to begin with!

I can understand retouching a zit or smoothing out cellulite or stretchmarks and such, but human beings are supposed to have creases on their faces when they smile or emote, even an 18 year old. And regardless of age, women and men turn to the media to gauge what is in style and what the standards of beauty are, it's a bit harsh to set a standard that is not even met by the person being photographed.

I also agree with the comment on photo lighting. Photoshop is used to salvage mediocre photography and that is just sad. Look at the portraits done by Steve McCurry and Annie Leibovitz. Very little retouching and they are able to capture the beauty of the human face and body thorugh their photographic talent.

posted by southweststyle

Aug 03, 2009 3:35PM

i like the education angle. I am pretty sure i was an adult before i realized that female celebs were NOT that perfect.

posted by Jac

Aug 03, 2009 3:42PM

in full support of this!~

posted by guest

Aug 03, 2009 3:47PM

Instead of banning photoshop they should just make it illegal for people to feel bad about themselves.

Don't they have something better to do with their legislative time?

posted by guest

Aug 03, 2009 10:08PM

#6 - Annie Leibovitz is one of the WORST Photoshop offenders. Nearly all her photos are montages these days.

Education is the key here. Young girls need to learn that their self worth shouldn't be measured by their attractiveness.

posted by guest

Aug 03, 2009 10:18PM

I like this generally, but seriously? How can you say "how much photoshop was used"? Do you list out things like waist narrowed, skin smoothed on face & thighs, etc.?

With the exception of removing scars, pimples, and other temporary things or things that humans can be(and often are) naturally without, I'm pretty anti photoshop. Lighting, using pretty people, etc., is what makes a great image. Deciding that no woman has those lines from the corner of her mouth to her nose when she smiles is just weird.

I'm sixteen and as easily affected as anyone my age by these things. My self esteem is not exactly through the roof. I try to be realistic about how unrealistic the things I see are, but it's tough.

posted by guest

Aug 04, 2009 6:09AM

ditto 11 and sorry to be insensitive, but people need to:
a) get a fucking brain. these days its VERY obvious if someone is photoshopped.
b) people need to stop patronising girls. and, everyone, if the lib dems are proposing this then its very likely you'll never hear of it again

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 8:35AM

In Australia, a couple of magazines (I thing Girlfriend and Dolly), which are aimed for 12-18 yr olds put a disclaimer under pictures of models saying that they have been photoshopped.

posted by guest

Aug 05, 2009 10:40AM

funny that talks for banning photoshop to protect young girls comes up because of an anti-wrinkle cream ad? everyone i know who's under 30 just jokes about using those creams, i can't imagine a teenager getting all stressed out about twiggy's face looking so smooth.

i know that's not not the point but come on, let's use the real names for things and not ignore the pink elephant in the room. photoshopping affects anyone who doesn't realize how much photoshopping is done on photographs. men and women, old and young.

posted by guest

Aug 16, 2009 9:27PM

I know I'm late, but no one really notices this:

Isn't it false advertising for a company to claim that a person can achieve the perfect skin/hair/body of a photo-shopped model who likely never used the advertised product in his or her life?