MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photoshopping banned in certain ads - check it out ->  (Read 8445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 18, 2009, 10:50 »
0


« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2009, 10:57 »
0
I can see the Brits' point.  If you're advertising a miracle cure for signs of aging, shouldn't you have to limit yourself to the miracle cure?  At what point does it go from advertising as usual to outright fraud?  And this is separate from the question of what all this editing does to our perception of beauty and growing old gracefully and body image in general.  Both the fashion world and mags like Playboy (Maxim for you youngsters) have a lot to answer for in that regard.

bittersweet

« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2009, 11:42 »
0
Are they going to also have to disclose which models have "had work done"?

« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2009, 14:17 »
0
Enhancement has always been done in the ad biz. Before Photoshop you just added another light with the same exposure and, presto, no more wrinkles.
Many of the before/after shots you see in the low-budget print ads could be done that simply.
So what's changed? It's still hope in a jar.

« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2009, 16:29 »
0
This is pure and simple fraud to sell a product - which is why it got clobbered in the UK.

Some people stood up and said the Emporer was stark naked. There will be more.

« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2009, 16:31 »
0
This is silly!  All the problems in Britain and the rest of the world and they want to spend money on this?

How much are the inspectors going to cost?  Who's going to administer the enforcement?

Just more lawyers looking out for lawyers - making work for them.  Give us a break!!

They should just make advetisers run the following text before and after every add.

"If it sounds to good to be true -- it probably is!!"

fred

« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2009, 16:52 »
0
Right you are, Fred. Only the most gullible among us could be shocked, shocked, that an ad may be skirting the truth. They need the government to "save" them? Why not a "truth" csar for every facet of our lives? God, how boring.

« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2009, 07:24 »
0
Right you are, Fred. Only the most gullible among us could be shocked, shocked, that an ad may be skirting the truth. They need the government to "save" them? Why not a "truth" csar for every facet of our lives? God, how boring.

Yeah, I guess I better stop replacing those overcast skies with cloudy blue ones.  I might get fined, or sued or put in jail for misrepresenting the weather!

c h e e r s
fred

« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2009, 11:36 »
0
I understand is not photoshopping per se, but using it to give the false impression of a miraculous result from a product.  But people want to believe in advertisements, like a miracle pill to reduce weight or a miracle cream to make wrinkles disappear.

A bit off-topic, but anyway.  A guy I knew from university ran a company that sold a book teaching a massage technique to finish myopia.  He was the company's model too, appearing in an advertisement with thick glasses ("before") and without them ("after"), although he had never used glasses in his life.  He said they had those "30-day-guarantee-refund-if-not-satisfied" policies, and he did return money from those who complained, but about 90% of the buyers, noticing they had been fooled, would not claim a refund, believing they would never get it.

« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Oooh nooo! I'm going to jail!


eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2009, 13:09 »
0
I want to mention a few words to this topic...

I understand that a certain amount of photoshopping is necessary for us all. but it has somehow become extreme, and now the world cannot live without it, and that's what is a real trouble. to go a bit off topic, young girls and even boys orient according to the images they see in these over life size banners in the street and magazine covers and so on, and it is just a distorted world. it is not good! why do we want to represent the world as it is not? for sure some slight enhancements are ok, even quite much, but what all these fashion people are doing is just absurd.
i don't know however, how this can be regulated - because it is just hard to define a threshold between overphotoshopping aka distorting and refining a picture...

look at this, which describes very very well my personal opinion on this aspect:

dove evolution


:-)

simone

« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2009, 13:45 »
0
I like that clip. I think it points out another way to save on modeling fees. Who's to say the model didn't look like that to start with? Look at all the great photography selling food, glassware, gift items, beer. Would we want a "point and shoot" photo used for our multi-million dollar media buy?

Who am I to decide who can and who cannot figure out product/people enhancements on their own? And I certainly don't want to pay taxes so some government bureaucrat can "protect" the dim witted. I pity those who long for a "beauty czar" (or an "anti-beauty czar") to enforce realism.

« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2009, 22:27 »
0
The video is of a make-up advertiser.  It makes sense to show their products may make you look "perfect" (even before the PS retouches).  But then it's not just the make-up products, but professional work.

I think Lancme uses an interesting approach, having mature women as their models, not showing miracles but well preserved skin. 

eyeCatchLight

  • Imagination is more important than knowledge.
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2009, 21:46 »
0
The video is of a make-up advertiser.  It makes sense to show their products may make you look "perfect" (even before the PS retouches).  But then it's not just the make-up products, but professional work.

I think Lancme uses an interesting approach, having mature women as their models, not showing miracles but well preserved skin. 

also this campaign uses mature women... i think it's called dove pro-age campaign, but you can google/youtube it, i don't want to spam the board with off-topic things.

all i want to say is that the photoshopping is sometimes too extreme, and has often very bad results in society.

i however don't know how to approach the topic. sorry if i went a bit off-topic.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2009, 08:22 »
0
Right you are, Fred. Only the most gullible among us could be shocked, shocked, that an ad may be skirting the truth. They need the government to "save" them? Why not a "truth" csar for every facet of our lives? God, how boring.

The most gullible among us would be children and young teens, now obviously the age-group that cream is targeted to an age-group that probably knows better, but in general the idea that photoshopping someone's face to that extent, and placing it in a magazine that kids and teens can read, is totally wrong.

You want your kids to think they are meant to look like that at 60? Or is each and every parent in the world going to sit down with their kids, take the magazines they have with pictures of models and explain to them, that they should never ever aspire to look like this because it's not real, and that they are beautiful just as they are? I know my parents didn't do that, and a lot of parents won't, they just aren't aware of the impact this has, not on adults perhaps, but on more vulnerable age-groups.. being a woman who was once an impressionable teen, something has to be done. Unfortunately the ASA has no teeth legally, so I'd imagine that advert will stay exactly as it is until the thing blows over..

« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2009, 09:15 »
0
Unfortunately the ASA has no teeth legally, so I'd imagine that advert will stay exactly as it is until the thing blows over..


I think they do. Here's an example of an Apple advert that was banned after 17 people complained that the sequences had been speeded up to give an unrealistic impression of what the iPhone could do;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7749435.stm

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2009, 11:35 »
0
Unfortunately the ASA has no teeth legally, so I'd imagine that advert will stay exactly as it is until the thing blows over..


I think they do. Here's an example of an Apple advert that was banned after 17 people complained that the sequences had been speeded up to give an unrealistic impression of what the iPhone could do;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7749435.stm


As far as I know, they can make 'recommendations', but they cannot sue anyone, because there is no law that allows the ASA to do so, maybe an individual could under the various consumer protection laws, but it's my understanding that the ASA, while it's recommendations are usually followed by the company, there is no legal penalty from the ASA for not following it's recommendations.. hopefully that situation has changed..but that's how I learned it.

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/rss/950088/ASA-given-power-fine-errant-advertisers/


« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2009, 12:46 »
0
Strictly speaking the ASA ruling may not be legally binding but it usually gives the kind of publicity that the advertiser itself doesn't want.

I think also that most of the major advertising mediums are signed up to it so even if the advertiser itself wanted to ignore the ruling then the TV stations, newspapers, etc would probably refuse to play ball. Ignoring such a ruling could also be very damaging to the case of both parties if the issue eventually ended up in the courts.

« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2009, 13:16 »
0
I shudder to think of such an organization in the US. And that they would have "powers" is even more frightening. With all the mischief politics are playing now in our lives why give bureaucrats more ammunition to micromanage anything?
I'd rather rely on the realities of good ol' US public relations -- and the competition -- to keep excesses in check.

« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2009, 13:31 »
0
^^^ Why? Their brief is essentially to safeguard the public interest by ruling on complaints from the public, usually on misleading and/or offensive adverts. It's a system that seems to work well with few if any disenters as far as I'm aware.

I'd much rather have the UK system providing clear, dispassionate judgements rather than the self-appointed swivel-eyed religious nutters holding sway as you've had in the US;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

vonkara

« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2009, 13:56 »
0
That video is nice ! I am actually against how publicities are made. I can make the difference and find the false publicities. What make me very mad is there is people believing all those BS. Like the high definition glasses, or when they cut the sound in the vaccum tv pub.

Still this anger I have make me wonder if I should go in publicity. Then sell as many vaccum and HD glasses I can before the people wake up.

« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2009, 14:08 »
0
^^^ Why? Their brief is essentially to safeguard the public interest by ruling on complaints from the public, usually on misleading and/or offensive adverts. It's a system that seems to work well with few if any disenters as far as I'm aware.

I'd much rather have the UK system providing clear, dispassionate judgements rather than the self-appointed swivel-eyed religious nutters holding sway as you've had in the US;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority


In the US it would take about 1 nano-second for any such group to be co-opted by political correctness zealots. I fear whatever power is granted to such a group. A "ruling" by any group would be slanted toward their own political or moral judgments. Any injured party in the US has access to the courts for redress. And outright fraud cases are handled by local or federal agencies. Please, no more nanny-state rules or regulations.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2009, 16:44 »
0
Guys advertising and politics are linked, I'll give you that, but not in the way you're talking about it..

Government regulation of businesses or social welfare or whatever, is a totally different thing to regulation of advertising companies as regards false advertising. There should be a fine imposed by the ASA for false advertising in my opinion. A product should be good enough to stand on it's own merits, without companies needing to totally lie and get the innocent public (including childen, teens, and other vulnerable people) to believe their bs..and there is a line, for example we had the recent advert for Gucci I think it was, with a severely emaciated model on the ad who had been photoshopped to look that way, there needs to be a way to stop that kind of thing without having to mount a massive internet campaign/public outcry etc.

A quick penalty, and some legal teeth to not only make them pull the advert, but to issue an apology, and an explanation that this in fact is not how the real model looked.. I hate regulation, but when it comes to advertising, I geniunely can't believe the ASA still doesn't have legal teeth in this day and age of overexposure and false/misleading adverts.

« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2009, 17:14 »
0
Beware what comes after "I hate regulation, but.." That's where subjective opinion begins to infest a society. It's usually couched in "for the children" or "vulnerable people" phrases. What the end result is a runaway bureaucracy ruled by the latest politically correct cause.
If you can imagine someone demanding something of you that is morally or ideologically repugnant to you you can imagine some group insisting you follow that demand under penalty of law. They may think they're "right" but that doesn't mean they're "right" for you. You can see how many different opinions are voiced here on a relatively minor Photoshop discussion. Do we want the weight of law to encompass any more of our lives?
The more governmental power that is invested in that kind of regulation the more chance of it coming around to bite you. No thanks. If an industry chooses to create a self-funded agency to police it's policies more power to them.

« Reply #24 on: December 22, 2009, 00:07 »
0
I just think this ad was questionable since it was implied that the photoshopped face was the result of the the product. If it was about a photoshopped mature lady advertising a cellphone, nobody would have second thoughts.

(I found the perfect cure for wrinkles and eye-bags: I avoid mirrors  ;))
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 00:09 by FD-amateur »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
18 Replies
5103 Views
Last post August 29, 2009, 02:17
by Dreamframer
67 Replies
11462 Views
Last post January 09, 2013, 19:39
by JerryL5
1 Replies
2150 Views
Last post February 03, 2012, 09:11
by ShadySue
30 Replies
7594 Views
Last post August 03, 2012, 13:14
by EmberMike
0 Replies
1447 Views
Last post May 24, 2016, 12:30
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results