Photography of people, retouching and it's unintended (or intentional?) impact

<p>There are new laws being proposed in France regarding veracity of the published image.</p>

<p>I totally support the idea of less artificiality (vs more "reality"?) in photographs of people, but wonder about legally defining the difference between removing zits and making legs longer. When is too much minus clarity illegal? when does use of the clone tool become unethical? Is Liquify just wrong when applied to slenderize an already fit and beautiful woman?</p>

<p>Watch this video:</p>

<p>http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/09/opinion/1194838469575/sex-lies-and-photoshop.html</p>

<p>in the NYT... t</p>

<p>Government has absolutely no place in dictating such things, beyond providing a court system wherein actual accusations of <em>fraud</em> or breach of contract (as it relates to image use) can be settled. What's next? Outlawing the use of long lenses because they reduce the apparent size of the nose? Outlawing the use of a stepladder in getting a look-down shot of an overweight person so that their chin-up posture improves the look of their portrait? Outlawing the use of a highly controlled light that de-emphasizes a double chin, a bad complexion, or thinning hair? Making a magazine run a lengthy explanation of whether and how each of those techniques was used for every photograph printed in their pages?<br /><br />You don't need to use Photoshop to produce a deceptive (or soothing, flattering) image. <br /><br />And if a magazine <em>wants</em> to make it a part of their editorial policy and posture to tell their readers how much they've retouched images, that's a MARKET issue. That can become a magazine's primary appeal, if that's what they want. It's a central feature of, say, National Geographic. They don't print "no retouched images!" on the inside cover, because they don't have to - it's part of their purpose and their reputation. And a magazine that's all about selling clothing doesn't need to tell us that they've done everything they can to make the clothes (and the people wearing them) look good, since we all understand that that's what <em>they</em> are supposed to be doing.<br /><br />Should we be expecting disclosures about whether or not the model's hair is her natural color? Or about whether people in specific economic strata can or should be able to afford the clothes being shown as part of a fantasy lifestyle? What about shoot locations? Can the average person really go and sit on a beach in Tahiti or summer in the Riviera, in order to experience what's being presented in a fashion spread? Nonsense.<br /><br />There are magazines (like "<em>More</em>") that go out of their way to showcase non-16-year-old actual real, live, meat-on-their-bones people in real life, looking their best. The demographic that reads that magazine <em>knows</em> this. It's part of the social contract between the magazine and its audience. Do we really need the <em>government</em> to be involved? Ugh. We're already doing enough to stoke a western-Europe-style Nanny State in the U.S. - I hope that a notion like this never makes it across the Atlantic (though I fear its inevitable - the self-esteem-inflation movement already has its teeth well into US culture).</p>

<p>look like my day to day job guys, dam now you know! ; )</p>

<p>Apart of that, i totaly agree with Matt.</p>

<p>And i also totaly understand teen and woman using those retouched images as a guideline for there *how should i look*..but the fact is, i think, people should use a bit of there head and understand that this is pure fiction.</p>

<p>When they got that concept, whe can rant over plastic surgeon that do this for a living (pretty good living) all across the world, like boobs implant on a 16 years old girl, botox on a regular gilr that dont like to have here forehead with line on it when she read? (heard that couple month ago in a tv interview!) THAT is way worst in my oppionion than a retouched image in a magazine.</p>

<p>is it the magazine that create this trend? a friend of your in highscool? your mom? ...i think the images and the problem come from many source at the same time.. babe in rap video are not retouched, and they also project a image of seduction to younger folks.</p>

<p>wow, how do you feel about gun control? Just kidding.</p>

<p>I think the stridency in these responses exceeds even the position of these potential requirements. A real Fox news tactic: "They want to restrict how you make your pictures! What's next? Forcing models to eat??? Stay tuned for the breaking news that may disable your Filter>Liquify!!"</p>

<p>The proposal is<em> not </em> making retouching illegal (did you actually watch or listen to what was being proposed?) It's requiring a statement of veracity, not unlike what already exists here at photo.net's critique forums: "Is this Image Manipulated?" You can still shrink girls down to concentration camp diet size if you need to, you would just have to say "these girls have been shrunk". </p>

<p>What's wrong with (a compromise suggested in the video) crediting a retoucher as a way of acknowledging that these images have been heavily post processed/composited? There's not even a hint of criticism or condemnation in that sort of information. It's just a posted notice that "work has been done".</p>

<p>Patrick, I would think you might support this, since you are well aware of the difference "retouching" (a serious understatement in most fashion photography) can make in the final version. Retouching makes a significant and creative contribution to most high end fashion work, often exceeding the effect of styling, wardrobe and makeup (and sometimes even the photography!). And all of those frequently get credited.</p>

<p>Totally reconstructing the human content of an advertising image is kinda like using Crisco and food dye to make fake ice cream, isn't it? I know you're not selling humans literally, but in a way that's what's going on: "buy this product so you can look like this"... but knowing that will never happen... t</p>

<p><em>What's wrong with (a compromise suggested in the video) crediting a retoucher as a way of acknowledging that these images have been heavily post processed/composited?<br /></em><br />What's wrong with it is that it does nothing to address the supposed problem. So, let's say you have an impressionable 15 year old girl looking at an advertisement for an expensive purse. The model is (or is portrayed as) slim, tall, and as the High Priestess Of Cheekbones and Smooth Skin. This 15 year old girl has seen hundreds of thousands of such images in her short years, but we'll go ahead and stipulate that she's utterly clueless, and can't imagine that anyone would ever deceive her in an advertisement (even though all of her friends are capable of Photoshopping cell phone cam pictures of each others' heads on other people's bodies, and do as a form of recreation, as all kids do these days). <br /><br />So, this strangely isolated-from-reality kid sees a photograph of a tall, elegant model. And in 8-point type at the bottom of the page, right under the phrase "A must-have new Gucci!" is "Photo by Charles P. Smithers, Retouching by Patrick Lavoie."<br /><br />How is that going to in <em>any</em> way alter this ignorant country bumpkin's notion of self image? If she's as ignorant of the big bad distorted world as everyone seems to suggest, what is seeing a retouching credit going to make her thing? That, just like someone did on her high school portrait, she's had a blemish or two cloned out? Or should the credit read "Skin retouching, hair enlargement, leg lengthening, eye color tinting, waist shaping, and fingernail shaping by Patrick Lavoie." And even if it did, what is this young naif supposed to glean from <em>that</em>? How <em>much</em> were those legs lengthened? *sigh*<br /><br />The larger social wailing and teeth gnashing here is <em>not</em> over whether or not the Patricks of the world are getting their proper artistic credit (where's the credit for the art director? the lighting designer? the makeup artist?). The people who want to see such image manipulations go away (for the damage they say that they cause) are trotting out this issue of retoucher credit as a red herring. Acknowledging that the retoucher was part of the image's production says absolutely nothing about whether the image was "heavily post processed/composited." Where do you draw the line? How many mouse clicks equals "heavily?" </p>

<p>pretty cool to see is name use 3 time in the same post..for good reason ; )</p>

<p>For the credit part, at least in Quebec, when a photographer submit a piece to a jury, they normally give credit to everyone and even the type of printer they use to make the print.</p>

<p>When you do some editorial, again the photographer, makeup artist..the team basically get there credit in the page, 8 or 6 point in a obscure place but whe get it.</p>

<p>Its a small place where everybody know each other, and everybody know what you where doing for the last campaing. Since i have a web site, i also showcase my work there. For me, my client is the photographer, and its all is really matter to me, knowing that other photographer will eventually know i was the one who retouch it.</p>

<p>_________</p>

<p>For a add campaing, even the photographer *rarely* get credit for a image, i must say never. When did you see the photographer name for a Vogue campaing? You discover the is name because you ear someone talk about it or discover the image on a web site.</p>

<p>All that to say that sure it would be cool to see my name in magazine, so the makeup artist, the model, the hair dresser, the assistant stylist .....put its a job that i must accept being in the shadow.</p>

<p>For the rest i agree with all of you about the fact that people should be educated about it, and understand the fake process..but who want to buy a pair of boxer short with a big ugly fat guy on the box?..unfortunatly even if i dont care (they could put a white box with the boxer word on it and i would buy it) its what whe call publicity, and the world revolve around that. I understand that young girl may think they should look like that..but that is a problem of society and parent job to do.</p>

<p>Its like saying that the PS3 game make the word more violent. If whe stop producing PS3 violent game are whe really gonna stop being a violent world?</p>

<p>just my oppinion : )</p>

<p>Think it through, Matt. Convergent standards of verity have been a boneheaded idea since well before the days of Pontius Pilate, and the French have a rich intellectual, literary, scientific, and artistic tradition demonstrating exactly that. All the same, if they have such a standard--and government enforcement to boot--they have something to get acrimonious and supercilious about. What's not to like?<br>

As to the fifteen-year-old girl you cite and dismiss as a hopelessly implausible ignoramus--hey, not only is she adolescent, she's female. Attractive people get more strokes and more attention, regardless of their intrinsic merits, and this is much more true for girls than boys. Add in peer pressure, herd instinct, and the situational press created by advertising and the media, and rational standards are a pretty tough sell. <br>

Plenty of women end up cutting themselves in self-loathing because they are preoccupied with what they must be, not with what they must do; and effective advertising supports self-loathing because it stimulates women to buy more beauty products. Effective advertising photographs are Photoshopped to impossible standards of perfection to stimulate the body dysmorphia characteristic of anorexics, and it works. Remember, professional wrestling, daytime soaps, Jerry Springer, and similar forms of colonic irrigation are successful because some viewers out there actually believe in them.<br>

"Warning: image digitally altered" would probably do no more good than the warning on a box of cigarettes--less, as advertisers would stampede to non-digital alterations--and I agree with you that the effect on artistic expression would be a cure worse than the disease. But consider the huge proportion of global production consumed by Americans, the huge amount of waste produced, and the effect of the extraneous carbon on world climate. Then look at Americans of a hundred years ago, or numerous people in well-managed third-world countries today, and ask yourself what it really takes to make people happy. Is consumerism an addiction worth breaking? And how should that be done?</p>

<p>Charles: the urge to purchase cosmetics on the off chance that it will align one's life with the fantasy portrayed in an advertisement isn't any different than the urge to purchase bamboo flooring to align one's life with the fantasy of achieving a holier-than-thou Green-tinged urban state of bliss. Even the "consume less! simplify!" mantra and movement is propogated largely by (what amounts to) the fantasy writings of self-help and Official Parenting Guru experts. People aspire to simplicity, but soccer practice gets in the way. I equate it with buying a hybrid car because one can sustain the fantasy that the teaspoon less fuel one puts in the tank makes some people think they're making up for the enormous energy and toxic mess that goes into producing that vehicle in the first place.<br /><br />That people can even use phrases like "zero emissions!" with a straight face when talking about plug-in cars is a sign that cosmetics-advertising-immune sophisticates still have their own rich fantasy life, and economic foibles to go with them.</p>

<p>Is the rational you express here, Matt, that since I cannot change the world all by myself, I can be as irresponsible and destructive as the law allows? Since I can't solve the energy crisis by myself I think I'll just dump my old crank case oil next to the stream in my back yard. It's MY property, right?</p>

<p>The broad brush you use here is reaching from hybrid cars to bamboo flooring to "country bumpkin" girls with bulemia... I think these radical responses indicate any rational but contentious discussion is probably futile (or at least, unenjoyable).</p>

<p>These bizarre non sequiters, extreme assumptions, polemic language, absurd characterizations of opposing positions and self centered posturing make me realize that this topic has quickly reached the point of diminished return. No good will come of further attempts at discussing this topic, here.</p>

<p>Maybe we should stick to discussing what shape softbox is best for short lighting fat girls... t</p>

<p>I wish i could afford a hybrid SUV.<br>

I wish i could use some bamboo floor in my appartment.<br>

I wish that all little fat girl / boy realize that theres more than what they saw in magazine.<br>

I wish kid will be more educated and get a better real life vision from there educated parent and stop bashing those poor young gilr and guy because they are *overweitght*, from there magazine reference point.</p>

<p>I hope i do enough now, so my little girl can see a better world, and i will do all i can to make her understand that what she see in the magazine i retouched that the reality is not that and that she should be happy to look like she does, and she have full control of that if she want to.</p>

<p>Back to my artificial job until 5pm..after i will go back to my perfect real life, perfect because i want it to be that way in my head ; )</p>

<p>Tom: the point is that on any number of topics (including "serious" things - like environmental issues, not just compartively frivalous things, like cosmetics), people with something to sell use elements of fantasy to get people to act. Current hybrids, as manufactured, are no more "green" than a good-mileage-getting late model standard internal combustion compact car. That's not debateable, it's just simple fact. But what people are responding to, in buying one, is the fantasy of saving the world. Once such vehicles actually DO involve less energy and horrid toxic messages to build and operate, then it's no longer fantasy. In the meantime, the successful marketing of them (as we see it currently used) isn't a whit different than the way that cosmetics are sold. <br /><br />That's not a polemic, nor is it a non sequitor. I'm addressing the the topic at hand: that advertising is designed to appeal to people's fantasy notions, and ignore the reality. We all know that bamboo grows rapidly (yay! no old-growth forests to cut down!), but it's not polite to remind people that most of the flooring made with it involves the use of toxic adhesives, giant amounts of fertilzer in the groves (most of which wind up in rivers and eventual coral basins) and huge amounts of fuel to ship the finished products from Asia to Boston or LA or wherever it's being trendily deployed. Showing that flooring in a sparkly, romantic-looking ad in Architectural Digest - and not mentioning all the downsides - isn't any different than advertising a purse with a model whose real legs are six inches shorter.</p>

<p>2-3 inch normally ; )</p>

<p>Matt, your point is apparently that people consume real products in order to perpetuate a "green" fantasy, just as they consume products to perpetuate a beauty fantasy. Yes, and yes. Marketing creates these fantasies in order to sell these products. Yes. Consuming a number of spiffy new products, such as hybrid cars and bamboo flooring, may actually be counterproductive in terms of the fantasized purpose of saving the world. Also yes.<br>

You didn't characterize the idea that this world could probably use a bit of saving as a fantasy--simply the idea that advertising designed to increase consumption could get us there. Assuming you would like to realize your own fantasy of an ideal world in which sporting dogs are able to go on flushing game birds in unspoiled wilderness, what practical action would get us there? Would a practical action, whatever one might be, be founded on the premise that human beings subjected to a constant barrage of commercial propaganda and disinformation are competent to act in their own rational self-interest? Or is that also a fantasy?</p>

<p>I'm trying to address the original topic here, by making an analogy. Legislation requiring a magazine to print "image retouched by Patrick" below "photo by Charles" won't cause anyone to make a more rational decision about whether or not to purchase what's being advertised. That's no better than fine print at the bottom of a bamboo flooring ad that reads "Please note: this topic is more complicated than you probably think."<br /><br />Unless the legislation being proposed actually calls for complete information about <em>how</em> some image was retouched, and shows the before/after, what is it supposed to accomplish? It's an empty, feel-good gesture to address a non-problem. Whatever percentage of young women may be afflicted by images of taller young women or people with nicer skin than they have is not going to be reduced by an empty message that says "someone worked on this image." That means nothing, conveys nothing, and teaches nothing. And it's one specific sub-set of this sort of thing.<br /><br />A hybrid car ad is <em>every bit as deceptive</em>, but where's the call for legislation requiring a discussion of the toxic battery manufacturing process? A homey-looking, beautifully shot interior that features a bamboo-floored bathroom might not only be lying (through the use of a wide angle lens) about the "real" porportions of the room (think of how many people will go home, look at their own small bathrooms and feel low self esteem!), but omitting the basic info about how the very thing they're selling (relief from guilt for using hardwood) is just transferring the problem to a different, ocean-killing venue. Where's the call to require fine print that points out how the fundamental message of the ad isn't just incomplete, it's actually the opposite of what a green shopper thinks they're buying? <br /><br />It's the hypocrisy I'm talking about, Charles. In my little bird dog world, there are plenty of organizations that do exactly what you're talking about. They collect money (sometimes through selling wares of one sort or another) and use it to promote farming techniques that don't eradicate wild game birds. Will my purchase of a Pheasants Forever or Quail Unlimited hat, by itself, stop ditch-to-ditch farming, or the use of too much pesticide - thus killing off the insects that support such birds? Nope. But it helps, a little. The difference is that I'm not all starry-eyed about it. I get it. And the organizations that do such things don't resort to fantasy presentations about the difficulties involved in what they do.<br /><br />The Ruffed Grouse Society doesn't advertise banquets by saying "if you buy a nice rubber chicken meal in a hotel conference room, you'll Save The Grouse," what they say is, "we'll feed you a marginal dinner while telling you what you have to go out and actually vote for, and actually <em>do</em> with a shovel if you are serious about this sort of wildlife conservation and lifestyle." That sort of frank appeal doesn't work as well with lipstick. And it <em>should</em> be the norm when it comes to vehicle purchases ... even though Toyota understands that the Prius is a vanity purchase and a way to get a warm and fuzzy green tax credit funded by other people who can't afford that expensive car themselves. Mentioning reality like that is a total advertizing downer, isn't it? Hence the lipstick approach to hybrid cars, but strangely no call for legislation to show how much reality has been re-touched in the process of racking up that green street cred.</p>

<p>So in a small community of better-informed enthusiasts who are motivated to protect game fowl anyway, promoters are able to succeed by naively presenting nothing more than the facts. In the larger, less-informed community we do have "truth in advertising" laws, but they are subverted to the extent that one has to consult a lawyer to find out whether a particular turn of phrase has to mean what it apparently says.<br>

And if you have got lawyers in place, it doesn't necessarily solve any problems. The lawyers in the SEC let Madoff get away with filing fraudulent reports for years, despite repeated warnings that the reports were fraudulent, simply because they were lawyers responsible for legal compliance, and not accountants or business managers responsible for correctness.<br>

It is indeed the hypocrisy we are both talking about, Matt. When deception is commonplace, sensible people disbelieve it--but they also come to see deception as acceptable, and when that happens a society is moribund. We've got to have conventions for guaranteeing that specific kinds of representations are authentic, and those conventions have to keep up with technology. I agree that it won't happen by mandating warnings of the form, "Photoshopped by . . ."; but it has to be done.</p>

<p>Well said Charles... t</p>

<p>http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/the-illusion-of-miles-per-gallon/</p>