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'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 withdrawn from high profile shows here on age or weight issues.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