Truth in Photoshopping

[JonA_CT]

Bubble? For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.

You want unreality? False advertising? Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?

I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.

Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked?

If parents pass on their kids their skewed view of the world, no amount of labels will ever change that. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. You're saying that it's aimed to help 12 year olds, but those are already taught by their parents. They see their mother puts tons of make-up on her face, dresses nicely, tries to loose weight over and over... You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.

Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible.

This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.

That's why you don't teach your kid to avoid only certain stuff you explicitly name for them, you rather teach them to think for themselves and to be able to judge the situations they come across. That's usually the difference between good and bad parenting.

Sure. You’re also insinuating that being a great parents allows kids to develop their full abstract thinking ability earlier than it actually does. Those pathways are still developing right through college.

I work with kids and parents daily, and great parents still have kids who make bad decisions. It’s normal.

I don’t understand the significant kick back though...seriously...it costs them nothing. Y’all are saying that everyone knows anyways. So why be upset that they have to label it?

 

[terri]

I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.

Oh, come now. You're stepping outside what is being discussed here in order to shore up your position. The issue is about labels for altered images of models, in advertising, to a targeted, gullible young audience - not hand-tinted portraits of Aunt Tilly.

Did you look at the articles that were linked to? It's an actual issue that's been shown to have a negative effect on young people, trying to live up to impossible ideals as portrayed unrealistically by advertisements.

If you know anything about the kind of photographic processes I employ, you'd understand that I actually know quite a lot about altering images to present a different reality. The difference is, I'm not trying to pretend it's real.

 

[Gary A.]

12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos that they think are real and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."

THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.

Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach!
Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent.

Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
a.) putting a label on drugs
b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
?

I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them.
It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.

Both (period). Everything helps. People learn differently, absorb differently. The first rule of advertising is repetition. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em. Parents tell their children, a label reinforcing that message, a PSA reminding them of their parenting ... what's the point of not adding a label ... or is the point merely to be right?

Conversely, where Terri exploits the creative end of photography, I made a living based on documentary photography. We're coming from opposite ends of the photographic spectrum yet reached a similar conclusion.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've been watching Project Runway and this season they're using models of various body types and sizes. It seems to be part of a developing trend and of course, Paris has always been one of the centers of fashion. So it doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world to encourage truth or realism in advertising.

You don't know sometimes how much something may have some positive impact. If the change in labeling ads helps anyone by increasing awareness then it's worth trying.

 

[limr]

You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.

No, I don't, and I never said I did. I said it was part of the process of raising public awareness. For the second time, don't oversimplify my argument in order to make yours look stronger.

 

[smoke665]

Wow, lot of opinions brought out for and against while I was driving. Interesting reading them to catch up. Not sure that anyone's minds are changed, but a good healthy discussion on a worthwhile topic nonetheless.

@Gary A. brought up an interesting point that most seem to have overlooked -"advertising contributes to the problem". In my early newspaper days, we targeted our audience no doubt about it, but today, the sophistication of the targeting is mind blowing. Just going to this forum is showing up somewhere on someone's target list. If your child does a Google search for homework answers, it showed up in a database somewhere, and the next time they go to Google, there are magically adds tailored specifically for them showing up. Get on FB and guess what, same thing. Sadly the advertisers and the media, are doing a poor job of regulating themselves, so yes some of the stuff kids see today may well be slipping past the parents and not appropriate for them. If labeling an ad that it has been altered, will help by all means go for it, but if the viewer is naive enough to be fooled by the image in the first place, are they going to be rational enough to heed the warning. I mean the ads today are slick, they've spent a ton of money to work on targeted subliminal messages that would fool even the most astute viewer.

As someone said earlier, I wouldn't disagree with labeling all ads.

 

[limr]

I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.

 

[Braineack]

Let's talk about to content of those smut magazines you girls read... then lets talk about the shitty crummy photoshopping. i saw something good on FB the other day about this very topic, let me find it...

here it is: Artist Redesigns 'Cliché And Sexist' Girls' Magazine Cover With Brilliant Results | HuffPost UK


Katherine Young on Twitter

 

[smoke665]

I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.

Referring to the sophistication of the targeting and the message, as an example from 5 years ago. How Target Knew a High School Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Parents Did | TIME.com The sophistication has only gotten more advanced.

 

[vintagesnaps]

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

 

[limr]

Let's talk about to content of those smut magazines you girls read... then lets talk about the shitty crummy photoshopping. i saw something good on FB the other day about this very topic, let me find it...

here it is: Artist Redesigns 'Cliché And Sexist' Girls' Magazine Cover With Brilliant Results | HuffPost UK


Katherine Young on Twitter

That's not actually what the discussion is about.

 

[limr]

I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.

Referring to the sophistication of the targeting and the message, as an example from 5 years ago. How Target Knew a High School Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Parents Did | TIME.com The sophistication has only gotten more advanced.

Ah yes, marketing techniques have got quite sophisticated indeed.

 

[SquarePeg]

It’s distraction time. Spin to another topic when your argument gets poked full of holes.

 

[terri]

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.

 

[pixmedic]

hehehe.....smut