Comments on: Photoshop Health Warning Proposed for Retouched Photos

By: Katthe7th

Katthe7th — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:54:28 +0000

There’s a huge difference between photographing a real person wearing makeup, and in lighting that shows them in a flattering manner, and flat-out carving up their body into something completely biologically impossible. Lest you think I exaggerate, take a look at Photoshopdisasters.com and you will see examples drawn from all over. High fashion catalogs, to ads for household products. Some of the end results are less anatomically correct than barbie dolls, and that’s saying something.

By: DaveL

DaveL — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:58:20 +0000

The fact is that photoshoped pics of models do create unrealistic (and in some case physically unachievable) body images and therefore agree with stating it as such.

With that said, any official statement coming out of France should be labeled, “May appear somewhat douchey to other cultures.”

By: Felipe Venancio

Felipe Venancio — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:52:27 +0000

What about make-up and lightning techniques? Photoshop is nothing more than an extension of these old gimmicks. Is this issue really important or are the law makers going astray from the real problems?

By: Nicholas Dollak

Nicholas Dollak — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:39:28 +0000

@Caveman – Thanks! Why did I think it was Chirac…?

By: ted

ted — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:10:59 +0000

This is why I always say “shopped” every time I see any picture here.

By: Foreigner1

Foreigner1 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:52:16 +0000

For the last 5 -or so- years there have been among others exhibits in Lisboa (Catalysts) and The Hague (Eye Opener) where it was illustrated quite graphically that 99% of the pictures we see in magazines is photoshopped in both ways. During the 2 mentioned exhibits it was found out that almost 100% of the visitors did not recognise all of the manipulated pictures as being mainipulated. There was a lot of disbelief in what was presented.
Lots of times you really have to see the original to recognise the subtile changes that were made to the picture.
Stars and celebrities are always shown younger and less rimpled and less fat than they really are. Pityful people or enemies are always shown more bad than they look in reality. The President of the United States will be bleached in White-focused pictures and he will be darkened in Black-oriented magazines. That is not young girls who are stupid like you SydneyClare say, but that is what editors do because they think it sells to adapt the picture to the target-group.

What is a true picture…? If you change the intensities of the colours or a bit of the focus, it already changes part of the message. I dare say there is no such thing as an absolutely non-manipulated picture.
During the 2 mentioned exhibits it was wound out that almost 100% of the visitors did not recognise all of the manipulated pictures as being mainipulated. There was a lot of disbelief in what was presented.

By: B.M.

B.M. — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:30:45 +0000

If we had true photos of ourselves in U.S. advertising, there would be a lot of changes: Mostly fat people sitting around looking depressed while eating a lot of sugar and fat while worrying about their favorite T.V. star’s love life, rather than smartly dressed good looking people being so attracted to each other while buying a bunch of expensive stuff.

Fat nauseous slobs waking up with their heads in the toilet bowls surrounded with their own puke; false teeth laying on the floor, rather than healthy buff young people anticipating sex with the same. (of course, after drinking the right brand of booze)

Sick old people who just spent their life savings on quack medicine (AMA) in the last few months of their pointless lives, rather than happy, vibrant, fulfilled, sagacious elders, who love their “retirement communities” (God’s waiting rooms)

If we had truth in advertising, we just wouldn’t bother, and we might just have to face up to the challenges of responsibility.

By: SydneyClaire

SydneyClaire — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 03:00:38 +0000

Nice way to blatantly say that young girls = stupid.

NO thanks.

By: caveman

caveman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:08:15 +0000

Nicholas Dollak, yes; it’s in the article:

“President Sarkozy was himself airbrushed two years ago, when Paris Match magazine ‘rubbed out’ his love-handles in a photo of him canoeing.

First Lady Carla Bruni is known to have been airbrushed using computer programmes like Photoshop hundreds of times during her former career as a supermodel.”

By: Nicholas Dollak

Nicholas Dollak — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:53:24 +0000

Funny — I seem to recall, a few years ago, then French President Jacques Chirac trying to one-up Russian President Vladimir Putin with a photo op. Putin had recently been photographed rowing a boat shirtless on vacation, and his ripped abs made him a sort of hero (and gay icon as well). So Chirac went on vacation and had himself photographed. Unfortunately, he wasn’t so sculpted-looking, so it was Photoshop to the rescue!

By: caveman

caveman — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:53:20 +0000

EVERY SINGLE photo you see in advertising has been photoshopped. So yeah, I think that would be a nice eye opener for the gullible. (If people can still read.)

By: meg

meg — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:09:39 +0000

so either they take a model of semi-unhealthy weight and make her look emaciated…or they take an emaciated model to begin with to avoid the label. awesome.

By: FishBottleT

FishBottleT — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:58:12 +0000

I dont think that putting this warning will help with eating disorders. Did you forget that it is not the edited photos that cause an unhealthy body image but the models that they pick. They pick only one type of body to portray.

By: c0ldfish

c0ldfish — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:55:30 +0000

just as long as they put it in a layer underneath the background. it’s a win win situation.