pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty images notice on retouching commercial images of models' body shapes  (Read 24613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shelma1

« Reply #100 on: September 29, 2017, 05:18 »
+1
And instead of being obsessed with women having huge breasts, by either photoshop or surgery, why has it not occurred to you that perhaps society should accept that women have different breast sizes?


since when society does not accept and adore women with all kind of breasts? One of the dumbest prole myths ever. Why do people like you come full out lying full throttle about things you can check on the net / IRL? Once again a thing that only exists in your skewed mind. Men's taste are so varied that you can literally build a business on running porn/sex sites that caters specifically to admirers of very thin girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of voluptuous girls, one that caters specifically to admirers of fat girls. They are all out there, so quit your nonsense. There is no point lying about stuff that the world contradicts in 0.0001 sec if you check. 

On IRL stuff, I have 3 best selling models. One is an italian looking, tiny (about 150 cm), voluptuous-type girl, she is slender but has a really big butt, strong cleavage (not huge breasts at all, just nice), and amazing sweet face with a million dollar smile. Second one is the exact model type, tall, very long legged, not flat chested but has smallish breasts, looks athletic, if she lost a bit more weight she would look "shredded". Third is also small like the first one, but she is also athletic, tiny breasts on tiny body. The only reason she doesn't look really fragile is because she works out and she has muscles. Do you know what they have in common? Men of all shapes and sizes and status adore them. They literally have 100+ of men to choose from that would drop everything and run to date them at a moments notice, they are often telling me some of the stories. One of them got hit on by yoshi form japanx. Other one has been courted for months now by the son of a billionaire winemaker, the guy looks and lives like james bond... just to know, we are not talking about your usual desperate men who would fk anything that moves. How does that fit into your tiny world of supposed huge-breast obsession?

The women you talk about get the huge breasts for other women, not for men, to make them envious. That's how they compete with each other because they are the type of women who have nothing else to compete with. As for the section of men who do like those huge breasts: it's not even about sex, they have mommy complexes. They want to suckle and feel secure :D

This, I agree completely.

Men.  ::)


« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2017, 05:31 »
+1
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 05:41 by topol »

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #102 on: September 29, 2017, 05:41 »
0
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.

Shelma1

« Reply #103 on: September 29, 2017, 05:43 »
0
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)

I just untangled it for you. You should re-calibrate your reading comprehension and oil your sarcasm detector.

Shelma1

« Reply #104 on: September 29, 2017, 05:48 »
0
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?

Negative publicity is a great tool to change opinions, behavior, preferences. It has been like this since dark ages. Our society has been shaped by the fear of negative publicity and by what others think of us.

See? There is no need for stupid laws and government involvement in such cases!

That makes so much sense. Now I understand how negative publicity stops murderers and rapists, and keeps corruption out of government, and why we need no laws. Thanks!

« Reply #105 on: September 29, 2017, 05:59 »
0
It's funny how you all decry the obesity epidemic but feel people should have the personal fortitude to not be influenced by images of unnaturally thin women.

Both problems stem from societal pressure. If you honestly think impressionable children and young girls should have the sense not to try to starve themselves, then surely all full grown adults should have the common sense to adopt a vegan diet.

After all, studies have shown vegans have the healthiest body weight, fewer diet-related illnesses like heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and we all know meat production adds just as much to climate change as the transportation industry. Everyone knows we'd meet our climate change goals if we simply stopped eating meat.

Since you're all sensible adults, I'm sure each of you has been vegan for quite a while now. None of you falls for marketing from meat and dairy producers. You're not tempted by fatty, salty foods. You've never eaten in a fast food restaurant. Sure, you're inundated with advertising for all that stuff, but you're smart enough to ignore it.

You all maintain a healthy diet and a healthy weight, get regular exercise, own the most sensible electric cars (no flashy gas guzzling sports cars for you..too smart to fall for that!).

Advertising definitely doesn't work, and it has no influence on people. Which is why I made a quite nice living working in the advertising industry. It was fun, going to focus groups and seeing how none of our messages made any impact! Ha ha !

And images don't influence people, and societal pressure doesn't affect the images you shoot, which is why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier.

So people getting too thin is societal problem equal to obesity? yes/no

Show me those unnaturally thin women in recent ads... pics, links, etc, thanks

"why you're furious that you can't photoshop skinny women into being even skinnier."

Please show an example where I photoshopped a "skinny women into being even skinnier", thanks

Also if images/ads influence people so strongly + create societal pressure, and super-thin-nes is being pushed, how come we are in the middle of a severe obesity crisis? Could you untangle this logical knot for me, thanks :)

I just untangled it for you. You should re-calibrate your reading comprehension and oil your sarcasm detector.

I did notice your attempts at humor about advertising, but you don't seem to able to answer anything. :)
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 06:01 by topol »

« Reply #106 on: September 29, 2017, 06:04 »
0
Oh....you mean there was negative publicity about it? Something Getty would rather avoid?

Negative publicity is a great tool to change opinions, behavior, preferences. It has been like this since dark ages. Our society has been shaped by the fear of negative publicity and by what others think of us.

See? There is no need for stupid laws and government involvement in such cases!

That makes so much sense. Now I understand how negative publicity stops murderers and rapists, and keeps corruption out of government, and why we need no laws. Thanks!

Laws keep corruption out of government? :DD I almost fell from my chair :D

« Reply #107 on: September 29, 2017, 06:09 »
+1
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.

The largest number of people were slaughtered by their governments, nothing comes even close to compete, it's a simple historical fact.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2017, 07:26 »
+1
Ohh, man, you look through history and you see those 100s of millons of peple killed by children's book and teen magazine publishers, cosmetics companies... ohh wait, that was people getting slaughtered by their own governments when those turned to oppression. Dude, you level of education about pretty basic facts of the world is... I don't even know. It's low. LOW. :)

You couldn't be more wrong about my knowledge of history, politics and world facts. And I also suffered the effect of an oppressive government, the consequences of war, and live in a country totally controlled by no-elected powers, despite free elections.

What happens is that I don't keep staring to my bellybutton all the time thinking the world revolves around it and my own selfish interests.

As for that constant oppression speech you better find professional help. You may think you escaped from oppression to a free-for-all and help-yourself world where Wild-West laws apply, but you are wrong. Although I recognize that passing from an oppressive government system to a Mafia controlled state may give you that impression.

The largest number of people were slaughtered by their governments, nothing comes even close to compete, it's a simple historical fact.

So what?

Are you're proposing a society where state and government does not exist? Something like an anarchist or real communist society, right? Both have the objective of making the State obsolete and make Internationalism a reality.

Maybe you want a society ruled without constitution and based on religious principles where laws are barely written and decisions are left to religious leaders and their subjective interpretations like in some countries.

Or are you more into a Mad Max style of society, where the laws and rules are created by those with the biggest guns and the mood of the day? And those not clever enough to adapt get erased in some sort of post-apocalyptic Darwinism?

And finally what does this have to do with a French law and an agency decision, when every state has thousands of laws (even the most disorganized) and agencies make decisions all the time a hundred times worse than this one? Can you actually point a country that cannot be considered a nanny-sate?

Plus, have you campaigned against the restriction on selling fattening foods in the schools? I'm pretty sure French-Fries sellers are not very pleased with the nanny-state dictating what kids can or cannot eat in school. Why don't you side with them? Since it doesn't affect you (or even agree with it) I guess in that case you don't care about the nanny-state...

Shelma1

« Reply #109 on: September 29, 2017, 07:39 »
+1
Before this ban on liquifying, the children, teenagers and young adults all knew that what they saw on posters and billboards, was most likely retouched.

This is possibly the funniest sentence I've ever read. Children know the images they see on posters and billboards are retouched?

In children's TV commercials there are very strict laws in the USA. Because children are so susceptible and believe whatever they see, 30-second commercials can only have 5 seconds or less of "fantasy;" that is, for example, when Barbie "comes to life" and prances around the room. Kids will believe Barbie can really do that. The bulk of the commercial must show real Barbies only doing the things real Barbies can do. (I won't even go into the ridiculousness of selling children a doll modeled on a sex toy.) Advertisers were forced into this because if they had their druthers the whole thing would be fantasy.

Think of all the teary eyes when kids realize Santa isn't real.Think of all the images we sell based on one illustration of a fat, bearded, white, red-suit-wearing Santa Claus done for Coca Cola decades ago, when in reality Saint Nicholas was a skinny brown man.

Millions of people have died because they were influenced by cigarette advertising. Advertisers used to target kids and young adults, because they're so easy to influence and if you get them addicted when young you have them until their untimely deaths. Laws forced them to stop, but they can still target adults.

Millions have died because they're led to believe you can only get protein from meat and dairy and it's OK to eat fatty foods. The egg industry manipulated scientific studies to "prove" eggs have no effect on cholesterol levels by testing a statistically insignificant group of participants who already ingested incredibly high levels of cholesterol, so adding an egg a day to their diets had no significant impact because their cholesterol levels were already off the charts and had nowhere worse to go. "An egg a day has no effect on cholesterol! Yay! Eat an egg a day!"

I worked briefly on KFC and refused the account pretty quickly because I saw the way they manipulated people to eat more fatty fried chicken. I worked on Humira briefly and saw the way they manipulated testing to make it OK to market a dangerous biologic pharmaceutical to people with a skin rash. They even suggested I take it. HA! I read the data; no thanks.  I don't want to die from incurable systemic infection, lymphoma or tuberculosis.

The images you see and the messages you absorb influence every decision you make. That includes what (and who) you decide to shoot.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #110 on: September 29, 2017, 08:14 »
+1
I grew up in a communist country. This whole thing straightforward reminds me of what the commies did to art and portrayal of people in art and commerce. It was the proletariat, the "workers paradise" so on almost all depiction, especially public statues and painting, they hand to be these chunky, robust characters with cubic heads and large thick hands, women having the same large thick hands as men. Sad to see the total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration in western ppl, probably coming from near zero history education, not noticing what their culture is sliding into ever more rapidly. It will be sad, bleak and painful, believe me.

Despite this incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history, I still don't see why it is so hard recognize the severe threat when you such ideologies rapidly invading every field of life, flooding everything with dictates. When you see that either push back as hard as you can, or if you can't.... run!

I'll have what you're smoking!

12yaerold's copy paste answer.  "Am I cool yet? Am I cool yet?" This isn't youtube.

I'll have you know, I typed that all out myself; thank you very much. I'm just curious how Getty Images no longer accepting retouched body shapes, and people's comments on the situation... is down to 'total cluelessness to the point of mental degeneration', 'near zero history education' and an 'incredible lack of education & knowledge about humanity's history'? That's maybe a little bit extreme!

No it's not, your are clueless. Take your time to listen to this, not that long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xss0vC3mRfE

If you don't see the connection with the discussion here (which is trivial to be honest), than obviously we have nothing to talk about.

Interesting video, but I think you're reading far too much into this. I'd think you were trolling, but unfortunately it seems that you're being serious.

The issue here is that you have likened A to B... B being something that the majority of people agree is a bad thing. If somebody disagrees with you, then you act as if somebody is saying that B isn't a bad thing, when they're just actually disagreeing that A is anything like B. Lets take an exciting example...

You say that the new rule by Getty is similar to Nazism. I say... no, I don't think it is. You then say Nazism is really bad, how can you say it's not bad, you are clueless, you're suffering from mental degeneration, you have an incredible lack of knowledge and education about the * and near zero history education.

Now, that would be fine if I was saying "the * seemed pretty cool to me", but I'm not... I'm saying that I don't think the recent announcement by Getty is analogous to Nazi Germany. 

There's no conspiracy, no new world order is trying to take over the world through Getty's policies, iStock isn't run by the Illuminati or giant humanoid lizards...  and we did land on the Moon. Time to take off the tinfoil hat I think.

Shelma1

« Reply #111 on: September 29, 2017, 08:41 »
0
I disagree. I think Getty is definitely run by giant humanoid lizards.

« Reply #112 on: September 29, 2017, 08:46 »
+1
I am obese (working on it) and no, my obesity does not come from advertising.

I had two traumatic events in my life and each time gained 22 and the second time 25 kg.

I eat extremly healthy food and exercise regularly (swimming, weights, other work outs)
Actually during the months the events happened I went to the gym 5 days a week and used my bike for around 18 km a day just to get rid of the stress. Didn't help, my metabolism slows down dramatically under trauma and I am sure I am not the only one.

But I certainly do not feel any influence from fashion designers or from MacDonalds. And the ads didn't change my metabolism.

Again you are absolutely simplifying something you clearly don't understand because you probably don't have the problem yourself.

Banning Mc Donalds or Pizza Hut ads, won't make me lose a single pound.

Only careful work, in consultation with my Doctors will. (18 kg down this year - combination of OMAD, ambronite/bertrand/huel and signifantly more weight training instead of cycling for those interested) Still need to work on my sleep. I have been looking for a system that works for me for nearly 20 years. And yes, I do have willpower. And tried all kinds of life style changes, many different sports to find. something that has an effect (yoga is great, calms you down and lowers stress hormones), lots of experimenting with food types and food timing.

So, anorexia and obesity are very, very serious problems.

To blame them all on newspaper ads or to have the smug attitude that everyone who is not perfectly healthy is a dumb idiot who needs to be protected from "images" and the wider world is simply beyond arrogant.

People with all kinds of illnesses, including alcohol addiction, cancer, or ulcers, need professional, medical help and have to develop very individual, personal solutions.

If you really want to help, I would suggest to develop a genuinly caring attitude, free from condescending snobbishness.

And perhaps the acceptance that you don't know everything and ask those with the problems for advice what they would recommend and what they believe can really help them.

ETA: I agree with Yuri. Telling people that now everything they see in magazines is the absolute documented real world, then for those who might be influenced, this is much worse.

If you really are concerned about the effects of photoshop on children, the positive and empowering way would be to teach them basic image editing skills.

There are tons of apps you can do to add virtual make up, change your looks etc...

This can be easily done in school, alongside a look at how computer games are programmed, how a green screen works for movies, how 3D renders are created.

Teach them a skill that gets them creative instead of making them scared of the world around them.

After all in the future a lot of visual art might be completly people free renders, even in movies.

Empower children, don't make them weak.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 08:59 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #113 on: September 29, 2017, 08:56 »
0
Where did I say everyone is a dumb idiot? Never sad it. I said we absorb images and marketing messages and are influenced by them. You can see that in the obesity epidemic sweeping the world. The American diet is the worst diet there is; as American fast food spreads to other nations the obesity associated with consuming it spreads as well. 70% of Americans are now on medication for health issues associated with their crappy diets.

Not everyone is overweight because they consume an unhealthy diet. Some people have health issues that lead to weight gain. My sister gained a lot of weight when she was put on medication for her psychological issues. I gained weight after early menopause. Neither of those bits of anecdotal evidenceor your bit of anecdotal evidencemeans the statistics about unhealthy diets being linked to weight gain and its associated health risks is incorrect.

The fact is that young models and other young women are starving themselves to death to meet unrealistic goals set by the fashion industry. So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching. They didn't ban the retouchingthey just said you had to label it so people were aware of it. Getty reacted to that the way they did, by banning it from their site.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 08:59 by Shelma1 »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #114 on: September 29, 2017, 09:22 »
0
So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching.

Was there a law about models having a healthier weight, as well as the retouching issue?

Getty reacted to that the way they did, by banning it from their site.

Knowing full well that there's no surefire way for them to tell... so people can keep uploading as they normally do, Getty will continue approving them as they normally have, all safe in the knowledge that if anything comes of it... they can say they've done due diligence by imposing the ban, and there was no way for them to know that any of the images submitted tried to circumvent said ban. Business as usual. 

« Reply #115 on: September 29, 2017, 09:28 »
+2
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nobody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo. A wine image is not created to hurt a recovering alcoholic.

And I am absolutley not creating images to intentionally hurt children or adults with any kind of disease, like some posters here imply.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine. That is what makes it so confusing.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carers for their elderly parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel,  if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym. And how tired they are.


But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 09:35 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #116 on: September 29, 2017, 09:31 »
0
So one country passed one law about models having a healthier weight along with labeling one method of retouching.

Was there a law about models having a healthier weight, as well as the retouching issue?


Yes. The law was passed in 2015 and covered both things. Models have to have a healthier BMI and retouching to make someone look slimmer or larger has to be labeled. It's an effort to curb young women from starving themselves. Since the fashion industry refused to stop pressuring models to be unhealthily thin the French government required it. It goes into effect in a few days.


Shelma1

« Reply #117 on: September 29, 2017, 09:36 »
0
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nonody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carer for their parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel. if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym.

But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)

Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to do anything but you. "Influencing" is not the same as "forcing." But in many cases the outcome is the same.

And the French law isn't forcing any photographers to stop "liquifying." It just says you have to label it. If you don't like Getty's reaction to that, then I'd say stop working with Getty.

« Reply #118 on: September 29, 2017, 10:26 »
+1
But I am not forcing my images on them.

Nonody has to buy my files. I am not forcing them to be models or the fashion industry to prefer children either.

Fashion doesn't interest me and I am clueless about trends, but if I do look for clothes I often miss seeing people with my own body type and clothes. But there are specialized companies for the obese and the others clearly don't want my money.

I see no point in forcing Karl Lagerfeld or Dior to by law design clothes for me or market towards people like me.

 If I sell images of peanuts I am not affecting someone with a peanut allergy. If I post a picture of a huge hamburger, I am not making someone gain a kilo.

Mind you, my food images are probably more useful for people who want to diet...it is not my speciality.

People are not forced to go to horror movies. Some do, some don't.

I very much believe that having a discussion about health, including the effects of modern media is a very good thing. I fully support all kinds of intiatives, also from celebs to talk about this.

But I believe in empowering people and teaching photoshop skills seems like a logical step to me.

The future will keep changing and basically banning the future will simply not work.

Public health is a huge issue, but I would focus on asking those affected what they want and what really works for them.

As for the fashion world, from the outside it looks like there is a huge market opportunity for someone to come in with an empowering message that reaches out across all body types.

It might need someone special, a visionary with good communication skills, to blast the current fashion dinosaurs into the past.

And with obesity, there are thousands of groups where people are posting what works for them and what doesn't. We are all testing all kinds of approaches, but those who succeed longterm, don't all follow the same routine.

And I have never once read - oh my, how I wish Pizza hat didn't have that huge ad in front of my house...if only I had not seen that Mc Donalds ad tonight...I would be sooo much thinner now...

No, people talk about the stress of their daily lives, how they are carer for their parents, how they sit all day and commute for two hours. How exhausted they are and how helpless they feel. if the pounds keep creeping up inspite of controling their food rigidly and going to weight watchers, how guilty they feel when they miss the gym.

But many of us, do find a system that actually works. And for some it is surgery, if it makes them healthy, then good for them.

Personally, from seeing myself and friends and family, I'd say helping people to live a life without three jobs, a decent and affordable health care system and a sensible retirement program would be the best help.

But who knows, maybe science will come up with something different one day.

Everyone blamed ulcers on psychological problems before we knew it was caused by a certain bacteria. Maybe the obesity epidemic also has sides to it we are not yet aware of.

We will see, if anorexia drops drastically in France by banning the liquefy action in stock photos, then I will be perfectly happy if the rest of the world follows.


Reality is the biggest laboratory and reality always wins :)

Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to do anything but you. "Influencing" is not the same as "forcing." But in many cases the outcome is the same.

And the French law isn't forcing any photographers to stop "liquifying." It just says you have to label it. If you don't like Getty's reaction to that, then I'd say stop working with Getty.

Logically, the next step is to do the same with food pictures, a very popular stock subject. We all know how many food designers use all kind of harmful chemicals to make food look good!

Because of this "fake food" ads, children, teenagers and young adults will eat more,  becoming obese. Since obesity is widespread, the government should ban "fake food" from advertisement. And Getty should comply.

This is because you believe the parents of those children, teenagers and young adults are morons, unable to educate their kids. Right? And we all know that the "nanny state" made of those unknown bureaucrats, most of them complete strangers, will do a better job in educating our kids than us, the untrustworthy and clueless parents!  :o

« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 10:37 by Zero Talent »

Shelma1

« Reply #119 on: September 29, 2017, 10:39 »
0
Man, are you guys over the top ridiculous in your reactions. Labeling one type of retouching leads inevitably to fascism. Saying people are influenced by images and messages inevitably means you're saying everyone's a moron. I'd hate to be in the room if one of you saw a spider.

By the way, there are already strict laws in place for shooting food advertising for big corporations in the U.S. advertisers used to fill soup bowls with marbles to make soup look chunkier than it really was, and fast food chains would add all kinds of ingredients to a McDonald's hamburger, for example, to make it look like it had more stuff in it than it really did. Ice cream places used lard to replace real ice cream because it melted too quickly under the lights.

Now the law requires McDonald's to shoot only the ingredients in an actual burger, though of course ad agencies make sure each of those ingredients is the freshest, plumpest, crispest, juiciest possible example, grilling 30 hamburgers to get the lines just right, and, of course, pushing the top bun back substantially so the ingredients between the buns pop out more.

Top food photographers and food stylists have to keep current with their knowledge of all restrictions.

We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 10:43 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #120 on: September 29, 2017, 10:52 »
+2
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Shelma1

« Reply #121 on: September 29, 2017, 10:58 »
+1
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

« Reply #122 on: September 29, 2017, 12:57 »
+1
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

Nice story. Maybe there is a connection between clementines, tangerines, mandarines, oranges and government fiat, but I don't really see it now.

My point is: once you agree that it is OK to "trick" people to buy ice-cream and burgers based on fake food and poisonous food, it means you must also agree that it is OK "trick" people to buy jeans worn by "fake models" or skinny models.

It is undeniable that all advertisement today is nothing else than fiction, illusion and, in the best case, a metaphor.

Who do you think really believes that, when a woman eats chocolate, she transforms herself in that sensual, voluptuous diva we see on TV? Should the nanny state ban chocolate ads, because they mislead young girls in believing that eating chocolate makes them more attractive, when, in fact, it might lead to obesity?

What are we talking about here? Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Shelma1

« Reply #123 on: September 29, 2017, 13:40 »
+1
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

Nice story. Maybe there is a connection between clementines, tangerines, mandarines, oranges and government fiat, but I don't really see it now.

My point is: once you agree that it is OK to "trick" people to buy ice-cream and burgers based on fake food and poisonous food, it means you must also agree that it is OK "trick" people to buy jeans worn by "fake models" or skinny models.

It is undeniable that all advertisement today is nothing else than fiction, illusion and, in the best case, a metaphor.

Who do you think really believes that, when a woman eats chocolate, she transforms herself in that sensual, voluptuous diva we see on TV? Should the nanny state ban chocolate ads, because they mislead young girls in believing that eating chocolate makes them more attractive, when, in fact, it might lead to obesity?

What are we talking about here? Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Somehow you missed the part where laws and regulations were passed to rein advertisers in. You'd never make it shooting assignments for major advertisers, because you'd constantly be ranting about all the laws and regulations we're required to follow, which are much more stringent than an asterisk mentioning the skinny model was retouched to be even skinnier.

« Reply #124 on: September 29, 2017, 13:54 »
0
We were allowed to use lard to replace ice cream in a toothpaste commercial, however, because we weren't actually selling ice cream.

According to your logic this fake food deceiving practice must be banned as well!

Let me remind you that skinny models are not selling diet pills but clothes, cars, travel, insurances etc.

Those "ignorant" kids and parents (you want "protected" by complete strangers), will see your fake ice-cream and fake juicy burger and want one for themselves. Maybe another one. And become obese.

This is no different than assuming that the same kids will not want their ice cream nor their burger anymore, when they see a skinny model advertising jeans.

Of course when kids see the ads for burgers and ice cream they'll want it for themselves. That's what advertising is for. To sell stuff to people.

Hey, wanna know a secret? If you live in the USA and you love Clementines, those cute little oranges, you'll be sad to find out that the orange growers of Spain actually grow oranges the same size as our navel oranges. They keep the big ones for themselves, separate out the runts and send them to us, then market them as cute little oranges kids love and charge a premium for them.

We had to argue with the clients for hours because they insisted on putting big oranges in the commercial and we kept explaining that nobody in the USA would recognize them because we're used to getting the tiny ones.

True story.

Nice story. Maybe there is a connection between clementines, tangerines, mandarines, oranges and government fiat, but I don't really see it now.

My point is: once you agree that it is OK to "trick" people to buy ice-cream and burgers based on fake food and poisonous food, it means you must also agree that it is OK "trick" people to buy jeans worn by "fake models" or skinny models.

It is undeniable that all advertisement today is nothing else than fiction, illusion and, in the best case, a metaphor.

Who do you think really believes that, when a woman eats chocolate, she transforms herself in that sensual, voluptuous diva we see on TV? Should the nanny state ban chocolate ads, because they mislead young girls in believing that eating chocolate makes them more attractive, when, in fact, it might lead to obesity?

What are we talking about here? Why do people think that the some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?

Somehow you missed the part where laws and regulations were passed to rein advertisers in. You'd never make it shooting assignments for major advertisers, because you'd constantly be ranting about all the laws and regulations we're required to follow, which are much more stringent than an asterisk mentioning the skinny model was retouched to be even skinnier.

I'm not advocating civil disobedience here. Respecting the law is one thing and advocating against it, is a different story. We have to follow these edicts, until we manage to change them.
A few post above I gave a few examples of stupid laws we have to respect. I'm sure that even you will find that, at least some of those, are ridiculous or unnecessary.

I would be interested to know more concrete examples of those restrictions you mentioned.

And I'm still waiting for your opinion in relation to: "Why do people think that some total stranger bureaucrat can do a better job in protecting and educating our kids than us, their loving parents?"

...and if we the government should also ban those chocolate ads featuring voluptuous divas, to protect our kids.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 14:05 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4130 Views
Last post April 20, 2007, 15:32
by a.k.a.-tom
5 Replies
4629 Views
Last post November 06, 2009, 04:23
by FD
52 Replies
10492 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 18:40
by OM
2 Replies
1874 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 22:22
by disorderly
989 Replies
92517 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results