Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] French to legislate image retouching
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:21:03 -0500
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20090317101204.0298cbd8@pop.med.cornell.edu> <36172e5a0903171628j232e37d7k67103d661bc3f00d@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20090318123247.02d50c80@pop.med.cornell.edu> <43DF72D6-576A-43BF-936A-AE31A4D56B1E@mac.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20090318152741.02e44b58@pop.med.cornell.edu>

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



In reply to: Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] French to legislate image retouching)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] French to legislate image retouching)
Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] French to legislate image retouching)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] French to legislate image retouching)
Message from chs2018 at med.cornell.edu (Chris Saganich) ([Leica] French to legislate image retouching)