Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I'm sure there are lots of opinions on this topic.

As some may have heard of the new guidelines for ads in England. The reigns are now tighter for what is allowed in digital trickery. Ads that have been retouched must have a disclaimer mentioning they have been altered. Now, researchers have developed an app to rate how much an image has been altered. That doesn't mean much in its self but you have to ask... who sets the bar? What level of retouching warrants a flag and what should be banned? Thats where the subjective debate lies. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

What do you guys think?

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/Hany_ ... ching.html

Personally I think it's a silly waste of time. Everyone knows these images for Ads are retouched and there is good reason why it is. No one wants to buy what people are selling if they connect it with an Ad that shows imperfections. The only type of photography that should be relatively un-retouched should be photojournalism for obvious reasons.

Have you seen the recent Madonna before and after images that's floating around now?
http://blog.modelmanagement.com/library ... OSHOP3.jpg
I'm personally opposed to anything that absolutely hinders creativity. Having said that, we've seen images that have gone way too far with post.

It's completely subjective.

It definitely is subjective, some retouching is definitely welcome:



But, on a serious note, its definitely a tricky subject. I agree with these types of guidelines when it comes to things like hair colour ads and makeup ads, because it really is false advertising isn't it. When the retouching is purely cosmetic like movie posters or generic fashion shots, I don't think its a big deal.

Oh My! Is that the real untouched picture of Maddona?

i think the only rules /laws should effect advertising
since if they have to retouch lines on a face for a face cream stating it gets rid of wrinkles is a bald face lie
imho

I think this is exactly the problem/
It is easy to think that everyone knows, but they don't.
Do children know? When someone explains it to a child, do they really understand?
The problem that society has with photoshop is the fact that artists are so good that they can sell capitalist lies.
They make people believe things that are not true.

Want to make things pop a little more, a little brighter, a little darker, or smooth out some skin? Go for it.
But cutting off inches from a person's waist, or plumping up their lips just seems wrong when it is in the context that this image either represents real life or a real product.

If things were so good, they wouldn't need to be advertised, but it is a vicious circle.
Think back to Sao Paolo: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/co ... 505580.htm

I think this was posted a while back on a thread here - but I think its worth reposted just for this!

http://vimeo.com/34813864

J.

Imagine your a skin cream company and because of your products bias, you were not allowed to retouch faces. That would make your models look worse than those who don't sell skin cream and who are allowed to retouch lines. The beauty industry would be a joke.

Even before and after comparisons benefit from lighting "enhancements" at the time of shooting. It comes down to advertising ethics, not laws. There will always be a bending of perceived reality. Wether its in photoshop is semantics.

As a consumer you have to assume all ads are retouched… even the ones that claim to be real.

I see nothing wrong with insisting on truth in advertising. Insisting everyone assume everything in advertising is fake or retouched doesn't protect consumers enough. It may sound crazy to some but I once read that KFC was sued in the UK because their ads portrayed sandwiches to be much larger than they actually are.
It is sad that too many Canadians simply accept false and misleading ads as 'normal' behavior. IMHO we shouldn't.

That's just it.
Photoshop the hell out of whatever you want, but don't think about hiding it, or assuming "basic" understanding.
People and corporations should be held accountable for the media that they put out into public scope.

It's like the fast-food "Angus" burger that they use to make you think it is some high quality grade of beef, or the fact that McDonalds bleaches their potatoes to whiten them.
How one is supposed to assume that these things are false when the truth is hidden so far?

I don't assume everything is fake… just enhanced.

No image will ever come out of the camera as a jpeg and make it to print without something being adjusted. Any adjustment no matter how small bends the truth. How far the truth is bent is the issue. Is it an exaggeration or is it a lie?

I have made bad purchases and when I do I blame myself. There is more than enough info out there to help me make the right choices. I just have to search for it.

I suggect you check the following link (with a regular computer as you have to "mouseover" the image to make it change...won't work properly with tablets):

http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html

Nice retouching. Makes me want to buy something.