Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think this is crazy talk. Television is far worse in it's representation of reality. If the public is bothered by retouching than the credit should say "photo illustration". But what do you do about tv? Leo Wesson Photographer/Videographer 817.733.9157 www.leowessson.com On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Chris, anecdotally that causal connection seems commonly accepted. I do > realise that you have just provided a link and mentioned the causal > connection. This is not meant to be negative regarding your post. I do > think > it is an issue relevant for everyone with a digital darkroom and worthy of > discussion. > This link is a practical example that we have shown our daughter. > http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/ad/retouch/index.html > 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 withdrawn from high profile shows here on age or weight issues.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. > Your linked article doesn't contain any actual facts or detail, as is > common > for this kind of op ed piece. I want to avoid straying into areas such > as the quality of media reporting, perceptions arising from advertising, > personal responsibility and liability. > 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. > 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. The effect of such a warning label might be, more in the > nature of "look we are doing SOMETHING" . > Would the magazine just provide links where the information could be > obtained? Would anyone go there except people interested in the field > perhaps? > 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? ). > 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? > Who sets the standards and for what contexts? > What would be the cost of implementation? Would there be practical > benefits? > > You can see how these ideas can balloon out of all 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? > > I sometimes take photos of my children (a lot!) and their friends if it is > a > party or similar. > I've posted probably a 1000 or more images to the list (not only those > subjects of course). All of those images have certainly had at least some > modification with photoshop. > Here's a more dramatic example, just for purposes of discussion that may be > of interest. This is a young teen friend of my daughters. There were also > gross problems with colour from the original processing (colour neg) and > prints from them. > The result pleased me,the subject and her family and I don't see any > negative impact at all. Put in another context you could argue that it is > unrealistic, promotes unhealthy expectations, negative body image etc. I > see > it as making an attractive and positive photograph. > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DLoriginal.jpg.html > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DL.jpg.html > A retouching disclsure would be extensive and detract from the appeal of > the > photo too. Yet it included a bw conversion with contrast, individual colour > conversion adjustments, 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 >