Discussion in 'Photographic Discussions' started by Ysarex, Sep 30, 2017.
It’s distraction time. Spin to another topic when your argument gets poked full of holes.
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
Jp (Jeep) has the occasional woman on the truck ad, but I think that's probably surgery more than Photoshop.
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.
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. )
Interesting idea, that apparently has already started https://petapixel.com/2017/09/26/getty-images-bans-photos-containing-photoshopped-weight/
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.
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!
Separate names with a comma.