The Evils of Photoshop

[Ranchu]

Well, if only one young person did not become bulemic and starve herself, but instead had a positive view of her body and herself because she wasn't told her whole life that she needed to look different than she did by people trying to capitalize on her insecurities for profit, would it then be worth it to have a law that photoshop cannot be used in images of humans in advertising? That's the question.

http://starcasm.net/archives/264055

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6Jg17Ouus

 

[Thardy]

Sorry, the backround is not Photoshopped in - it's just real-live Queens, NY. The picture is sort of a tribute to a famous Bruce Davidson photo done in the 60's. Just Google "Bruce Davidson Subway Platform" and you'll see the original.

Yes, Subway platform! That's it.

 

[Keith]

And for some strange reason I keep seeing the title of this thread as:

The Elvis Of Photoshop! 😀

 

[Takkun]

Well, if only one young person did not become bulemic and starve herself, but instead had a positive view of her body and herself because she wasn't told her whole life that she needed to look different than she did by people trying to capitalize on her insecurities for profit, would it then be worth it to have a law that photoshop cannot be used in images of humans in advertising? That's the question.

http://starcasm.net/archives/264055

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6Jg17Ouus

That's what I assumed the Post article was originally about. Not about altering the photographer's original art, so much as the compulsive tweaking of the model's figure.

 

[Berth]

OK, the Washington Post is a crappy, terrible newspaper that wouldn't know a good story if it bit them on the back end. I wouldn't believe a word they print. That's closer to the truth, but strange seemed to be enough. But, we're off track here....

They must be very embarrassed by their latest Pulitzer. They only have about 60 of them. 🙄

 

[Ranchu]

Which they got after being dragged into writing the story they got the Pulitzer for by the Guardian, after first trying to clear it for acceptability with the state, endangering the source.

 

[Berth]

Which they got after being dragged into writing the story they got the Pulitzer for by the Guardian, after first trying to clear it for acceptability with the state, endangering the source.

Well that explains the other 59 Pulitzers too. Bad people for a long long time.

 

[Ranchu]

I guess I'm not impressed.

 

[Sparrow]

Uncropped, less busy, and the eye is drawn towards the model properly, IMO. From something that looks like it fell out of instagram to a proper portrait!

When I've submitted work to newspapers / news sites before, they drag the image into a pre-existing image template with a totally different aspect ratio and sometimes orientation, and will just leave it however it ends up without even attempting to rearrange it within the space they've decided to work with.

... yep, that's a lot better

 

[Sparrow]

It seems to me like a move back to the fashion photography of the 'fifties and 'sixties, where the clothing was the centre of attention and the model had no purpose other than to present it as well as possible.

In that context, the background makes good sense, contrasting the bright colours of the coat well.

Who knows? As our cousins say: "what goes around, comes around". Perhaps the next big thing will be line art of the clothes being sold. An opening for Stewart, methinks.

... should I ever get involved in that area again please have me shot

 

[c.poulton]

IMHO, this is a very interesting portrait, a very clever play of color: yellow on her dress, echoed by the yellow tactile paving on the ground, the sunset sky in the distance, and of course the background yellow sign. Leibowitz has her magic.

Exactly my thoughts when I started reading this thread - the crop is a shame, but uncropped makes for a much stronger image IMHO...

 

[hepcat]

Well, if only one young person did not become bulemic and starve herself, but instead had a positive view of her body and herself because she wasn't told her whole life that she needed to look different than she did by people trying to capitalize on her insecurities for profit, would it then be worth it to have a law that photoshop cannot be used in images of humans in advertising? That's the question.

http://starcasm.net/archives/264055

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG6Jg17Ouus

I think its interesting that this discussion thread has primarily centered on the Washington Post's journalism record, and the editorial decision to use an Annie Liebovitz photo to illustrate the article rather than the discussion of the topic of the article itself.

I don't disagree with the premise; just the plan. This isn't something that can be legislated; this is a marketplace issue. If images that are unrealistic and picture impossible or unhealthy body types are rejected by the marketplace, they won't get made any longer (at least commercially...); it's supply and demand. But that requires education for consumers of images. Perhaps if they feel legislation is required, it should be penalties for advertisers using such images.

But then again you get back to how to define what specifically would violate such a law. Legislatures have struggled unsuccessfully with making a working definition for "pornography" and an "assault rifle" for years. This would be no different.

Diminishing the demand for such images through education is a much better direction to achieve success, I think.

 

[Berth]

Exactly my thoughts when I started reading this thread - the crop is a shame, but uncropped makes for a much stronger image IMHO...

Yes, Annie didn't suddenly go blind and lose her perspective.

 

[Ranchu]

I don't disagree with the premise; just the plan. This isn't something that can be legislated; this is a marketplace issue. If images that are unrealistic and picture impossible or unhealthy body types are rejected by the marketplace, they won't get made any longer (at least commercially...); it's supply and demand. But that requires education for consumers of images. Perhaps if they feel legislation is required, it should be penalties for advertisers using such images.

So you have a faith based approach, how charming. Don't you have a responsibility? Legislation works for criminal, environmental, and safety regulations, why would it not work with this? Do you really want a society where any exploitation for profit whatsoever is permissible regardless of the harm it causes, or did it just sound good when they told it to you? Have any daughters or nieces?

 

[hepcat]

So you have a faith based approach, how charming. Don't you have a responsibility? Legislation works for criminal, environmental, and safety regulations, why would it not work with this? Do you really want a society where any exploitation for profit whatsoever is permissible regardless of the harm it causes, or did it just sound good when they told it to you? Have any daughters or nieces?

Your perspective is apparently kinda rigid, and maybe not so practical.

Having worked the street for thirty years, I can tell you first hand that mere legislation really doesn't work very well for criminal, environmental OR safety regulation. If they did, we wouldn't have robberies or homicides, environmental disasters, or any drug-related crime. And yet we do. And our prisons are full and our courts over-loaded. Legislators are well intentioned, and legislation is sometimes necessary, but in this case it just wouldn't be effective. Hear me out.

People tend to think that discussing an issue is as good as implementing a solution, and lawmakers see passing laws as "the" solution. Solutions are seldom that simple.

Unless the population is educated in the laws, and the population is willing to follow them, enacting new legislation is a waste of time. We are already over-regulated with well-intended but poorly-written and unenforceable inane laws. Besides, photography, fashion, and the web are world-wide and societal norms are largely exclusive of a body of law of any particular country.

Yes, it's a problem. It is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. I'm merely suggesting that passing another unenforceable law and calling it "good" isn't the solution. The "problem" lies with primarily two industries: fashion and publishing... a fairly small target market actually. The solution lies in trying to install a new societal norm and make "heroin chic" and "thinspo" as products, financially unrewarding and societally unacceptable.

 

[Ranchu]

Right, a faith based solution. Maybe somewhere off in the future things will change, it'll work out. Thanks.

 

[mfunnell]

...Legislation works for criminal, environmental, and safety regulations, why would it not work with this?

And your original question was:

...would it then be worth it to have a law that photoshop cannot be used in images of humans in advertising? That's the question.

OK - my question is: what exactly would such legislation look like?

Would it, for example, ban use of a named commercial product (Photoshop) or would it extend to a class of products (thus encompassing things like PaintShop Pro, GIMP etc.) as well? If it banned, say, use of Photoshop would it also ban use of Adobe Camera Raw (sold as part of Photoshop)? Would it ban all use of RAW converters, thus making it a legal requirement to use straight-from-camera JPEGs for advertising images involving people. How does that square with cameras offering in-camera RAW conversion? Would it encompass products such as Lightroom, which offer RAW conversion, but aren't optimal for pixel-by-pixel editing? If not, why not, given the sweeping nature of the potential ban.

And so on. If you're proposing legislation I think it incumbent on you to be somewhat specific about the nature of that legislation and to set out how it achieves it's intended consequences and how it avoids unfortunate unintended consequences. Despite knee-jerk demands of "someone needs to write a law against it", I think you'll find, as a practical matter, that is rather harder to do well than you seem to think it is.

Also, I think your argument would present better if, when someone raises a practical objection to your proposal, you did not immediately resort to accusing them of deliberately wanting to perpetuate the evil you believe you're trying to correct.

...Mike

 

[noisycheese]

From the reader responses:

"American Medical Association has concluded that comparing oneself to Photoshopped ads– which project unrealistic, manipulated, singular ideals of beauty, race, age and size– can lead to negative body image and self-esteem, as well as other emotional, psychological, and physical issues. These consequences particularly affect, but are not limited to, young girls and women."

In addition, low self-esteem leads to negative education and health outcomes (in addition, but not limited to Anorexia.) False advertising is deceptive and the FTC needs to ensure that women and girls are no longer lied to in order to buy products that purport to be panaceas. Here are the stats:

* 69% of elementary school girls say magazine images influence their concept of ideal body shape

* Over 30% of high-school girls and 16% of high-school boys suffer from disordered eating

* 80% of women feel “shame” after reading a beauty magazine

Magazines have precious little to do with reality.

People should be able to figure this out on their own but apparently that is beyond the capabilities of the vast majority of brainwashed, programmed and indoctrinated masses these days.

I'm a fat, bedraggled middle aged guy. Do I become traumatized and despondent when I see the cover of Men's Health magazine at Barnes and Noble? Uh... NO.

Why? I do not compare myself to professional male models half my age who make their living by working out at the gym and striking shirtless, yummylicious poses for magazine covers.

If those little boys who know precious little about life and the world had lived the life I have lived, they would look like me, not like the woman candy that they look like. We can say the same for the Barbie doll type of idolized females that grace the covers of "beauty" magazines.

Ferchrissake, wake up people! Magazine cover models have no bearing on the real world or the rest of us who live in it.

Gawd Almighty, how did people get to be so clueless, fragile and needy?? "Fork" the magazine cover chicks and dudes!! 🙄

 

[Ranchu]

It affects young girls, the last people I would blame for it is them. Funny how the middle aged guys talk so tough, though, like it's them being threatened. Yeah, huh? And nobody answered my original question, Mike, including you.

Well, if only one young person did not become bulemic and starve herself, but instead had a positive view of her body and herself because she wasn't told her whole life that she needed to look different than she did by people trying to capitalize on her insecurities for profit, would it then be worth it to have a law that photoshop cannot be used in images of humans in advertising? That's the question.

 

[Pioneer]

Right now in our culture, thin sells. It has been going on for a very long time. Now I suppose you can legislate against that but I, for one, am not sure what that would look like. It is so easy to come up with these simple solutions where "someone else" takes responsibility and corrects the problem. What is infinitely more difficult is to come up with a real solution that works.

What would actually be better would be for our culture to actually put our collective foot down and quit buying things from those companies who advertise using these models. But not only doesn't that happen, but that is really only a small portion of the problem, kind of like the visible tip of the iceberg. What you aren't discussing is that our young men (and an awful lot of older men) chase those thin young girls around. Unfortunately for those wonderful young ladies who don't have that body shape, they aren't being chased. And they are not stupid. They know exactly why they are not being chased. It is really hard to convincingly talk with those young ladies about being proud of themselves and to ignore the unhealthy, skinny, body model being promoted in magazines all around them. Believe me, they know who is being asked to go to the prom.