Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]With literally hundreds of billions of dollars being spent (between advertising, films, tv of all forms) it's a very tough battle. And nothing new either. Cultures have been applying peer pressure for "looks" seemingly forever (and well before our media glut): piercing, binding, stretching, painting, tattooing, bejeweling ad nauseum; and as far as I can tell - it's always about class, status and power. Uniforms, decorations, gang colors - it's all the same game. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Chris Saganich wrote: > I always found it a bit irksome that as photographers we rely on > the power of imagery yet deny that power exists if outcomes are > called into question. I'll always advocate that images have more > power then we tend to give credit and inform our thinking in ways > which are not easily identified. Adolescent boys are also victims > here as may well be more affected judging from some of the > indicators. Now, I doubt that glossy magazines and photoshop are > the sole cause of the ever increasing prevalence of adolescent self- > mutilation and suicide (suicide being the number 3 leading cause of > death behind accidents (mostly motor-vehicle) and cancer) for 10-15 > year olds, but one can't help wondering about the exploding "tween" > markets, all the $$$$ to be made, and the across the board > disregard to child safety. Instead of exploding gas tanks and > cigarets we have false and manipulating advertising packaged for > the sole purpose to convince young girls and boys they must look, > act, feel, do ABC or they won't be popular, fit in, have friends, > be desirable, etc. It's bad enough this is so prevalent for adults > but leave the kids alone. This "tween" market advertisers are so > eager to exploit amounts to a giant psychological experiment. It's > best to keep you kids out of the lab and certainly don't contribute > to it if you can, although I have lost the Disney battle at my > house, I still don't have cable TV. > > > At 02:38 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote: >> I'm with you on this Chris. >> I've spent too much of my life in the ad bus; >> and glad to be winding it down. >> I've not worked (much) in the fashion end of the business; >> but the effect of these retouched dolls on our societies >> and specifically on our young women's self esteem and self image >> is a damn shame and very real. >> >> Ann's daughter is a beautiful 22 year old >> and I watch her (and her mother) >> watching this crap and doing daily battle >> to achieve these impossible looks. >> >> They often don't even believe me >> when I point out that scenes in movies >> are made with body doubles and frame by frame retouching. >> >> I'd love to see the whole industry collapse; >> makeup, surgeries, botox - all of it. >> >> It's one thing to stay healthy and fit; >> quite another when you feel forced to >> paint, starve, cut and paste to compete >> in a world of illusions. >> >> I find women most beautiful >> when they're feel perfectly comfortable with themselves >> and the least makeup is applied. >> >> Regards, >> George Lottermoser >> george at imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com >> http://www.imagist.com/blog >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist >> >> On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Chris Saganich wrote: >> >>> Well, we are on opposite ends of opinion (and the world). I have >>> only contempt for glossy magazines and the entire industry >>> including all advertising. From your arguments I feel as though >>> your an Ad man of some sort, something I'm familiar with being in >>> NYC many friends of mine make a living retouching images, in fact >>> almost all the photographers I know call it their bread and butter >>> these days. >>> >>>> This link is a practical example that we have shown our daughter. >>>> http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/ad/retouch/index.html >>> >>> Click before and after on the breasts and sing a sea shanty. >>> Breasts like that require surgery. >>> >>> >>>> Here this issue has been raised to an extent, with a voluntary >>>> code for >>>> women's magazines especially, to follow. Another related issue is >>>> minimum >>>> age and weight standards for fashion models. Following media >>>> attention >>>> stirring popular opinion, some successful European models have been >>>> withdrawn from high profile shows here on age or weight issues. >>>> Yet we have >>>> 13 yr olds launching successful careers from cover photographs on >>>> Teen >>>> magazines. >>> Voluntary codes? Your kidding right? Men's magazines as well not >>> just the girls ya know! >>> >>>> I do have reservations regarding effectiveness for any >>>> legislation to >>>> require disclosure on retouching. >>>> >>>> Here are some points that come to mind for me: >>>> A meaningful disclosure on any fashion image would be complex and >>>> large. I >>>> don't see that as practical at all. It could easily double the >>>> size of a >>>> magazine for example. >>> >>> Then they shouldn't retouch so many images. >>> >>>> A generic warning (similar to a product health warning) may not be >>>> effective >>>> at all. It would realistically have to say that EVERY image in the >>>> magazine >>>> has been altered. >>> >>> So? Say it like it is. >>> >>> >>>> Since many magazines are international in distribution, this could >>>> negate >>>> any national legislation anyway, editions unaffected by such >>>> legislation >>>> could be more desirable (cheaper? smaller? ). >>> >>> The magazines which do not retouch, significantly altering body >>> genotype, should be more expensive due the legislation. >>> >>>> What about television and movie content? Do we require disclosure >>>> when a >>>> "stunt butt" stands in for the leading lady for unclothed scenes? >>>> Should disclosure extend to all printed or displayed images? >>> Yes, Yes, Yes >>> >>> >>> >>>> Who sets the standards and for what contexts? >>>> What would be the cost of implementation? >>> >>> >>> >>>> Would there be practical benefits? >>> >>>> Like ban on public smoking? Likely yes >>>> >>>> You can see how these ideas can balloon out of all proportion. >>> >>> I have no problem with balloons of great proportion. >>> >>> >>>> In my opinion, this sort of issue sounds like a great idea at >>>> first glance >>>> but is grossly impractical to actually implement. Do you have any >>>> professional insights on practical effects or implementations that >>>> you are >>>> aware of? Can you share any views on what you think is appropriate >>>> or how >>>> that causal link could be approached? >>> >>> For causal links, here is one of many recent meta-analysis. Start >>> with all the references. >>> >>> http://psy6023.alliant.wikispaces.net/file/view/Article+for >>> +PSY6023.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DLoriginal.jpg.html >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DL.jpg.html >>> >>> Don't do this, it's a psychological disconnect which is likely to >>> support negative body image for the girl. Why do something that >>> increases the probability of a negative impact? Like not wearing >>> seat belts...because you know your local hospital has a top notch >>> trauma unit? There is no important justification here. I'm sure >>> every likes the after photo, just like I like TV more when I'm >>> stoned. Should I advocate doing drugs to make our TV experience >>> better? Any disconnect with reality is addictive and potentially >>> harmfull. >>> >>> >>>> A retouching disclsure would be extensive and detract from the >>>> appeal of the >>>> photo too. >>> Good. >>> >>>> Yet it included a bw conversion with contrast, individual colour >>>> conversion adjustments, >>> >>> this doesn't significantly change body type, but, does have an >>> impact about how you feel about yourself. The impact can go either >>> way depending on what you do. There is more power to an image then >>> your giving credit, and therefore more power in the hands of the >>> image manipulator. My professional opinion is that through this >>> kind of research we will see the beginnings of the real power of >>> images on us and how we relate to the world, how we treat each >>> other, and how we treat the world. I don't see any disconnect here. >>> >>> >>>> obviously removal of skin imperfections, lines, >>>> texture and luminace, eyes altered in shade, detail, sharpness, >>>> tone even >>>> highlight adjustments, localised focus adjustments throughout etc >>>> etc. >>>> I think that the viewer can look and is well aware that the photo >>>> has been >>>> idealised. Similarly, surely people in general are aware that all >>>> printed >>>> photgraphs are subject to entensive modification before >>>> publication. There >>>> are millions published every year. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2009/3/18 Chris Saganich <chs2018 at med.cornell.edu> >>>> >>>> > Another reason I like the French. As a Public Health >>>> Professional I do see >>>> > a thread through image retouching, negative body image, and >>>> > psychological/physical harm through the entire population. >>>> > >>>> > < >>>> > http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/opinion/op-ed/ >>>> 1194833176718/index.html#1194838469575 >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Leica Users Group. >>>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers >>>> Geoff >>>> 'Pick up your Leica and make the best photo you can' >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ >>>> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>> >>> Chris Saganich MS, CPH >>> Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics >>> Weill Medical College of Cornell University >>> New York Presbyterian Hospital >>> chs2018 at med.cornell.edu >>> http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/ >>> Ph. 212.746.6964 >>> Fax. 212.746.4800 >>> Office A-0049 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > Chris Saganich MS, CPH > Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics > Weill Medical College of Cornell University > New York Presbyterian Hospital > chs2018 at med.cornell.edu > http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/ > Ph. 212.746.6964 > Fax. 212.746.4800 > Office A-0049 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information