Truth in Photoshopping

[limr]

What smut magazines? The most recent subscription I had was to The Hockey News. (Which reminds me I gotta renew that.)

Artist's Magazine here.

New Yorker. And I steal Buzz's Economist when he's done with them so I don't have to pay for my own

 

[snowbear]

Jp (Jeep) has the occasional woman on the truck ad, but I think that's probably surgery more than Photoshop.

 

[thereyougo!]

young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.

Seriously? Forget the surgery for now, but let me ask something, how many women including yourself, use makeup? Why do they do It? Isn't it an attempt to create the illusion of a more pleasing look? The point is I think women have been striving for the ideal unattainable body image far longer then PS has been around. Frankly I see this as nothing more than a useless "feel good" law. Women will still spend billions on cosmetics, clothes, and surgeries, to achieve the perceived ideal look.

Those women control their own image in their everyday life. They apply their make-up or when having it applied have control over how it is done. If they decide to have surgery it is of their own volition, not through the use of a graphic tablet in the hands of someone else.

 

[ClickAddict]

Everyone is talking about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of having "This is not real" (or whatever) typed on the add, but I think the biggest impact has been overlooked.

As an advertiser, I would NOT want that on the ad. Not because I would be trying to trick the audience, but because I dont want a "competing" thought in the ad. If I am trying to get across the message "My product will make you rich/healthy/happy... whatever" I want you thinking specifically that idea after viewing the ad. Not "Hey that was a photoshopped image" It would be like me trying to sell you a vacuum, talking about it's powerful features and somebody standing next to me talking about my shoes. It's distracting. Advertising companies spend millions to get the exact message they want and everything is worked out to smallest details in ad campaigns. You think they want to throw disclaimers on top of all that?

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing. )

 

[JonA_CT]

Everyone is talking about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of having "This is not real" (or whatever) typed on the add, but I think the biggest impact has been overlooked.

As an advertiser, I would NOT want that on the ad. Not because I would be trying to trick the audience, but because I dont want a "competing" thought in the ad. If I am trying to get across the message "My product will make you rich/healthy/happy... whatever" I want you thinking specifically that idea after viewing the ad. Not "Hey that was a photoshopped image" It would be like me trying to sell you a vacuum, talking about it's powerful features and somebody standing next to me talking about my shoes. It's distracting. Advertising companies spend millions to get the exact message they want and everything is worked out to smallest details in ad campaigns. You think they want to throw disclaimers on top of all that?

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing. )

 

[smoke665]

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers.

Interesting idea, that apparently has already started https://petapixel.com/2017/09/26/getty-images-bans-photos-containing-photoshopped-weight/

 

[Braineack]

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing. )

Even vacuums need photoshop.

 

[limr]

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing. )

Even vacuums need photoshop.

Once again, that's off topic. The French law is specifically about editing photos with the explicit intent of altering the shape of a model's body to make it appear thicker or thinner.

This has nothing to do with general editing for skin smoothing or tone or stray hairs, or shinier chrome on vacuum cleaners, or the content of magazine covers. Suggesting it does unnecessarily muddies the conversation.

 

[Tomasko]

And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing. )

Or they would simply search for genuine skinny models and prefer them => once again promoting the same exact message. Except this time they won't settle with photoshopping the photos, now they would effectively force models to appear the way they want. That, or the model doesn't get the job.
But yay, no photoshop!

 

[smoke665]

Or they would simply search for genuine skinny models and prefer them => once again promoting the same exact message. Except this time they won't settle with photoshopping the photos, now they would effectively force models to appear the way they want.

They already covered that - from the same article "In 2015, it passed a law aimed at banning the hiring of models deemed "excessively thin," reports The Fashion Law. Models who want to work in the country must get a doctor's note affirming a healthy body mass index. Italy, Spain and Israel have passed similar legislation."

 

[Tomasko]

@smoke665 , you don't need to be "excessively thin". Thinner than average works usually quite well too. So instead of hiring average women (which seems what most proponents are hoping for), they will just hire more skinny models and be more picky about who they choose.
You see, people don't want to see "average" models. They want to see hot, healthy, attractive people. Advertisers will deliver, simple as that.

 

[smoke665]

@Tomasko the problem is it will be a doctor who decides what the "healthy" body will be. If their doctors are like those in the states, that could be a wide variance.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.

 

[Braineack]

Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.

that whole model thing is why I stopped watch it.

the producers also made that plus-sized girl win last season even though she was awful.

too contrived for me.

 

[waday]

Few items that I found interesting (and quite sad) from the article:

• Nearly 1% of France's population has an eating disorder (assuming 600k people and a current population of ~66.9 million people)
• Nearly 10% of Americans have suffered from an eating disorder at some point in their lives (assuming 30 million people and a current population of ~323 million people)
• "Seventy percent of girls ages 10 to 18 report that they define perfect body image based on what they see in magazines," Katherine Record, deputy director with the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, told NPR in 2015