pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Complaint Upheld on Excessive Retouching  (Read 7776 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2011, 02:55 »
0
This is good news : ) Our famous people look like video game characters. The next logical step would be for them to all have samurai swords and flame throwers.

rubyroo

« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2011, 03:30 »
0
 :D

I've always thought Julia Roberts had a beautiful face.  Mainly because the character in her face is so interesting.  If that had been the first time I'd ever seen her, I wouldn't have seen anything special at all.  

I'm also tired of seeing beautiful women's faces blanked into sameness by muscle-freezing injections - which strikes me as a way of trying to achieve the (otherwise impossible) airbrushed effect in real life. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 04:12 by rubyroo »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2011, 03:35 »
0
She also looks outwards cross-eyed. : )) Besides that, I really dislike this anti-beauty campaign. It is supposed to be in good intention, but It already became an exaggeration, just like reotuching. We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled * jerk. Brave new world. : ))
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 03:36 by lthn »

rubyroo

« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2011, 03:55 »
0
I think my feeling is that it's for individuals to decide what they consider beautiful.  The problem for me is that people get brainwashed with one version of 'beautiful' and everyone aspires to look the same.  I'm more interested in the character of a face.  The things that make it unique.

Eye of the beholder and all that.

« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2011, 04:02 »
0
I think the issue here is not beauty, but the false propaganda that buying a certain product will turn an aged skin in a smooth one, and using photo edition to corroborate the magic properties of a product. A soft, beautiful skin is a result of many factors - good nutrition products included - but you have to do something before major damage happens. You can soothe wrinkles, but not make them disappear.

Having said that, Lancme products are my favourite. :D

Slovenian

« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2011, 04:27 »
0
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled  jerk. Brave new world. : ))

Only in America my friend ;)

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2011, 05:07 »
0
Here is another link pertaining to the same story from the BBC News website today, Wednesday 27.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14304802

rubyroo

« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2011, 05:25 »
0
That's a much better link.  Thanks  :)

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2011, 08:43 »
0
That's a much better link.  Thanks  :)

Thanks. Here's another from Campaign (an advertising and media magazine/online magazine in the UK).

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/bulletin/campaign_daily_fix/article/1081978/loreal-cosmetics-ads-banned-mp-complains/

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2011, 09:09 »
0
Sad to see that even after the Twiggy casehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing,] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/16/twiggys-olay-ad-banned-airbrushing,[/url] cosmetic companies are still resorting to tricks.
Actually even saying it's "down to Julia Robert's natural healthy skin" is also hysterical, as they are admitting it's not their magic potion anyway.

« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2011, 09:19 »
0
Heavily edited photos and heavy marketing sells. end of the story  ;D

« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2011, 09:23 »
0
At this point, I think it would be weird to see un-retouched photos in ads, I've gotten so used to it. And I'm always surprised that people think the products *will* make them look like a retouched photo. Like, does anyone really believe that a shampoo will make their hair look like a glossy acrylic wig?

I thought everyone pretty much knew it was a marketing tactic...selling the fantasy.

rubyroo

« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2011, 09:29 »
0
Well - I know that now because I've been around a while, and have grown wiser.  But I see my 12, 14 and 20 year old nieces getting sucked in by ads, just the same way I was at their ages.  Just as I didn't listen to my Mum's protestations, they don't listen to their aunt's  (their Mum still doesn't see it in her 40's).


Just found a Twiggy comparison shot:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23784637-twiggys-secret-in-airbrush-storm.do

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2011, 10:04 »
0
Well - I know that now because I've been around a while, and have grown wiser.  But I see my 12, 14 and 20 year old nieces getting sucked in by ads, just the same way I was at their ages. 
I had NO idea about airbrushing until my then-boyfriend, now-husband told me about it.
Ha, well, I was so selfconscious as a teen thinking I was a weird ugly freak, I usually covered myself up totally, so hopefully I've got less sun damage than I might have had (still too much though).  ;D

« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2011, 11:00 »
0
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled  jerk. Brave new world. : ))

Only in America my friend ;)

I tire of your pathetic anti american propaganda. You should realize that there are people living here that doesnt resemble your vision of the clueless overweight hillbilly red neck american. Your screen name just screams intolerant to me  ::)  + 1 ignored

« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2011, 11:05 »
0
Hundreds of reports of this story seem to have all used the same original copy of the Julia Roberts advert. I wonder where from. There is something in the middle of her face which looks like it might be something coming through from the other side of the page. Or else a reflection. It's weird that they did not all use a more perfect version of the image to make the point.

I wonder how come they have all used the same picture. It is as if the whole thing has been syndicated ready to go as a package. I wonder how that works - does anyone know ? Does the standards authority have a PR department which puts out the finding as a package ?

Ironic a Lib Dem MP complaining about bogus promises :)

« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2011, 11:12 »
0
I wonder how come they have all used the same picture. It is as if the whole thing has been syndicated ready to go as a package. I wonder how that works - does anyone know ? Does the standards authority have a PR department which puts out the finding as a package ?

It might be due to a couple of big companies that control most of the published media in this world. Thats just my guess.

« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2011, 11:28 »
0
It might be due to a couple of big companies that control most of the published media in this world. Thats just my guess.

I don't think that is the reason. Because the image does not seem to be credited anywhere - and agencies normally demand a credit on editorials. Don't they ? And it is very unlikely that so many sites would have used the same scan. They would have all gone with a much greater variety of Julia Roberts pictures if they were each sourcing it themselves.

I think this story everywhere has come from a syndication or direct from the regulator. I'm not looking for a conspiracy btw - just curious how this one works given that there is a degree of govt involvement.

rubyroo

« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2011, 11:43 »
0
Ha, well, I was so selfconscious as a teen thinking I was a weird ugly freak, I usually covered myself up totally, so hopefully I've got less sun damage than I might have had (still too much though).  ;D

 :D

Similar story here - except I covered myself with enough make up to look like a completely different person.  It was like wearing a mask.

We sound like two halves of a Goth  ;)

@ Bunhill - the only thing I can think of that is comparable is the way PR companies work, composing the article, choosing the pic and sending it out to the press with a publication date.   Not sure how that fits with a story like this though, as I was only ever involved in product launches and damage limitation exercises during my brief stint in that world.

That was another revelation - I hadn't realised until then that so many of those magazine articles about products were written by the manufacturer's PR agents or departments.  I'd thought they were genuinely impartial and were a positive 'thumbs up' from the magazine stuff.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 11:47 by rubyroo »

rubyroo

« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2011, 11:55 »
0
Follow up:  Just had a quick look at how press releases have evolved since my time, and my guess is that it may be a press release from the ASA.  The company I worked for used to have their copy used verbatim wherever it was published, so I was confused by the variations.   It seems that journalists are welcome to extend the article in their own way, so that would seem the most logical answer to me.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2011, 12:05 »
0
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled  jerk. Brave new world. : ))

Only in America my friend ;)

Nah, here in europe too. I see this all the time: another article on how horrible anorexia is in some hyperbumd magazine -when they manage to find a single starved teen in the ocean of overweight ppl- gets everyone pent up about "our current beauty ideals" and the "fashion industry" : )) Then you get all the fat women (males seem to stay out of this, maybe bit more sense of self criticism) going around with that fake-worried, accusing look on their faces, very agressivly pushing the agenda the everything else besides them is fake. It has gone to the point when they say stuff like (and its commonly accepted by the uneducated plebs) liking slender women is a current perversion and for most of history fat women were the ideal. They even dare to cite poor old Rembrandt and that prehistoric statue from Willendorf, I'v heard that 10000 times in my life - interesting how art history got narrowed down for this cause, even to men : )  They say stuff like fat ppl were the true survivors back is prehistoric times because of frequent famines. I hear bullsheit like that all the time... this is more serious brainwashing than most would consider, an agressive attempt to make men feel ashamed for their most natural preferences. It's heavily backed by the media which mostly feminist oriented, and this messing around about retouching is just a small spinoff of this ' lets make ugliness a standard out of sour envy' movement.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2011, 12:12 »
0
We are already just few steps away from a world where ugly fat women are supposed to be the beauty standard and everything else just has to be fake.... and if you disagree with ugly fat women that they are indeed beautiful, and dare to not find them attractive, you get labelled  jerk. Brave new world. : ))

Only in America my friend ;)

I tire of your pathetic anti american propaganda. You should realize that there are people living here that doesnt resemble your vision of the clueless overweight hillbilly red neck american. Your screen name just screams intolerant to me  ::)  + 1 ignored

He is a bit feral but he has a point in general. : ) Most of these excessively stupid and malintent movements originate from the US.

rubyroo

« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2011, 12:47 »
0
this messing around about retouching is just a small spinoff of this ' lets make ugliness a standard out of sour envy' movement.

I'm not sure why your feelings are so strong on this - or why you're talking about fat vs thin (which wasn't the topic), but FWIW, I think it's more 'Lets bring things a little closer to reality, so as not to crush people's confidence with standards that even the models themselves can't achieve'.

My own feeling is that there should be room for everyone to shine (or not, as they see fit).  Not just a select few.  None of that should interfere with your taste in women.  If men are being told 'You have to find large women beautiful or you're a jerk' in some version of America that I've never heard about, then clearly that's wrong.  Just as is the notion that 'You have to fancy thin women or there's something wrong with you'.  Taste is very personal and shouldn't be governed by edicts (yours or society's).  Each to their own. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 12:58 by rubyroo »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2011, 12:52 »
0
this messing around about retouching is just a small spinoff of this ' lets make ugliness a standard out of sour envy' movement.

I'm not sure why your feelings are so strong on this - or why you're talking about fat vs thin (which wasn't the topic), but FWIW, I think it's more 'Lets bring things a little closer to reality, so as not to crush people's confidence with standards that even the models themselves can't achieve'.

nah, thats just an excuse for a 'take-your-ideals-away' rally. Fat vs. thin is basically the same issue as this.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2011, 12:57 by lthn »

rubyroo

« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2011, 13:00 »
0
Well I'll leave it there.  It's not my job to try to change your mind, after all.

« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2011, 14:30 »
0
Where will it stop. Now it's photos of people. Next will be food adds. I know my  Whopper from Burger King certainly never looks like the ad.  It all sounds a bit silly to me. But I'll be glad to see some of the photos go.  The reflections in the eyes bother me. Especially in the Estee Lauder ads. It does help figure out the lighting set up though. Just my opinion.

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2011, 16:19 »
0
I don't see this as a debate about beauty standards, as much as a simple case of false advertising.  If they are advertising a product that is supposed to make your skin look flawless, then they need to achieve that look using the product, not photoshop or air brushing tricks.  

There are are actually people naive enough to believe that a certain type of makeup or skincare products could make Julia Roberts, a 43 year old woman, look that perfectly smooth.  After all, it's right there in the picture ;)



  

« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2011, 16:36 »
0
Facebook often shows an ad for me saying "Learn how Gisele Bndchen lost 10kg in one week" or something like that. Sure, that must have been when she delivered her baby - baby out, kgs lost. ;D  I'm sure she had a very controlled diet and excercises, because someone who literally lives from the perfectness of her body (that can not be airbrushed on a fashion show) can not allow the body to go through any harmful change. Given today's knowledge of nutrition, I believe this could be done without harm to the baby's health.

Now, to believe that some pills can make one's body like hers (and skin, and hair...), this is silly, however people tend to believe in these "easy" miracle solutions, because otherwise taking even a few steps towards "perfection" is very hard.

I think Lancme did not retouched photos of Isabella Rossellini when she was their model, did they? She was not young and did not look young, but did have a fabulous healthy-aging look.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2011, 22:11 »
0
It doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise any one of us. We are photographers and know how photoshop works.

Best way to keep your skin healthy...stay out of the sun and when you do go out there make sure you wear sunglasses to keep those crows feet away...That's my beauty product...lol

RacePhoto

« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2011, 00:01 »
0
I don't see this as a debate about beauty standards, as much as a simple case of false advertising.  If they are advertising a product that is supposed to make your skin look flawless, then they need to achieve that look using the product, not photoshop or air brushing tricks.  

There are are actually people naive enough to believe that a certain type of makeup or skincare products could make Julia Roberts, a 43 year old woman, look that perfectly smooth.  After all, it's right there in the picture ;)


Have to agree about 110% the other 10% is for people who think advertisements are factual and educational and aren't only about marketing a product.

False advertising should be stopped, but selling beauty is a nefarious as selling art.  ;D Eye of the beholder.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2011, 03:37 »
0
I don't see this as a debate about beauty standards, as much as a simple case of false advertising.  If they are advertising a product that is supposed to make your skin look flawless, then they need to achieve that look using the product, not photoshop or air brushing tricks.  

There are are actually people naive enough to believe that a certain type of makeup or skincare products could make Julia Roberts, a 43 year old woman, look that perfectly smooth.  After all, it's right there in the picture ;)



  

You are the one who is incredibly naive. Look at the comment above yours... if what you are saying is the case, why is this issue not being constantly jumped on with food products, f.e. where its even worse? Because no overexitable yappping she-dog official or wannabe politican is going to feel jelous of retouched strawberries, thats why. : ) You ppl always fall for the facade and then taken advantage of, because you truly beleive these are common sense agendas pursued by some 'common sensed' crowd... and actually if you dig in, these things always spring from a single individual's mind with some utterly selfish motivation.

Also, where the heck do you think the custom and directives of retouching come from, if not from our beauty ideals? : )
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 03:47 by lthn »

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2011, 03:45 »
0
It doesn't surprise me and shouldn't surprise any one of us. We are photographers and know how photoshop works.

Best way to keep your skin healthy...stay out of the sun and when you do go out there make sure you wear sunglasses to keep those crows feet away...That's my beauty product...lol

If you are a photographer, you should also know that a razor sharp unretouched portrait printed in some larger format (or viewed in larger size on screen with decent resolution) is NOT a fair representation of a person at all.  You are going to see unfavorable details accented and poking at your eye that you would never-ever even notice IRL unless you are dermatologist.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 03:50 by lthn »

« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2011, 08:58 »
0

If you are a photographer, you should also know that a razor sharp unretouched portrait printed in some larger format (or viewed in larger size on screen with decent resolution) is NOT a fair representation of a person at all.  You are going to see unfavorable details accented and poking at your eye that you would never-ever even notice IRL unless you are dermatologist.

That is a good point.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3390 Views
Last post March 13, 2007, 16:11
by ludesal
1 Replies
3005 Views
Last post February 03, 2012, 09:11
by ShadySue
2 Replies
1548 Views
Last post May 21, 2013, 15:07
by rubyroo
63 Replies
14923 Views
Last post January 10, 2014, 21:16
by ShadySue
4 Replies
2740 Views
Last post January 29, 2018, 12:09
by BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle