"Procter & Gamble has agreed to never again run an ad for its CoverGirl mascara because it used "enhanced post-production" and "photoshopping" to make eyelashes look thicker than they were in real life. P&G agreed to the ban even though it disclosed in the ad that the image was enhanced.
The move is the latest in a series of baby steps that U.S. and international advertising regulators have taken to ban the use of Photoshop in advertising when it is misleading to consumers"
About time... now if they would stop photoshopping celebs and models so our perception of "ideal" isn't so distorted thay would be doing everyone a huge favor... especially young people who are struggling with their body image.
Well I think banning Photoshop is ridiculous. That is taking it too far.
Hey...have you seen any of those 50 Top Photos of 2011 or 100 Most Powerful Photos of the Year? Hey...guess what? Those photojournalists use Photoshop. Uh-oh....better take away the Pulitzer for photography.
Everyone is familiar with this little magazine called National Geographic. Guess what? In order to even be considered a National Geographic photographer you must have Photoshop. They won't even *look* at your photos if they are SOOC and would, most likely, get you banned for life from submitting photos to them.
However...as a member of the National Press Photographer's Association I can tell you one thing: photojournalists and trade magazine photographers use Photoshop responsibly.
The photographer and photo editor were fired after this photo was printed, and the photographer was banned from the NPPA. In the member's manual, or I think they call it the by-laws or something like that, there is a section about the responsible use of post-processing photos.
Photojournalists are allowed to correct white balance, adjust exposure compensation, sharpen details, and remove smudges "so long as the final result is considered reasonably comparable to that scene with the human eye at the time the photo was taken." You are not allowed to add or remove anything, you cannot change the shape of a person's ass, you cannot change their eye color, you can make to changes other than the very basic.
It's been widely know for years that adult magazines and fashion photography heavily, heavily edit photos. Now people are starting to point the finger at cosmetic photography and suing because "I didn't look that good after using your product." And now people are finally starting to realize "Hey, we need to government to step in cause we're too greedy and superficial to do it ourselves."
Banning Photoshop is overkill. I hate to tell you, but those nice portraits you got from Sears hanging on your mantel were edited with Photoshop. They all are. Banning is overkill, but it would be nice to celebrity photographers, fashion magazines, cosmetics, pretty much any kind of advertising or print photography adhere to the same principals as photojournalists.
Shew. OK. If you actually made it through my entire rant, kudos to you. Also: you have too much free time on your hands.
It's about time. Kudos to the Dove line of soaps and cosmetics for getting on this bandwagon a while back already and having "normal"-sized models, models of all ages, etc.
I have to agree with @jasonbarnette that banning photoshop is absurd. On the other hand, I don't really understand why advertisers use it anyway (aside from the basic edits that Jason mentioned being used by photojournalists). They hire a specific person to endorse a product, if they do not like something about said person, they should have not hired them.
I would also have to say that I disagree with @debsphotos@marilyn . It is the job of the parent/guardian/ caregiver of young people to instill a sense of worth in that child, not the media. As the child grows, it is their job to find their own self worth, not the media to tell them that they aren't good enough. Then again, I suppose I have a different viewpoint because there never have been and more than likely never will be a lot of people in the media like me. As such, I suppose I had to learn to rely on my own feelings to determine my self worth. I feel that is how it should be. Not the point of the discussion, I know. I'm opinionated, sorry.
@mej2011 I understand that it is the job of the media to sell products that will make us all have flawless skin, well-toned bodies and stunning hair and I totally agree that it is the job of the parent/guardian/caregiver to instill a sense of self-worth in youngsters and it would be wonderful if that actually happened. Unfortunately, as I witness daily, that does not always happen and then the kids are left to the mercy of the media which is not really good about showing reality. And if they have not had parents/guardians/caregivers who gave them a strong sense of worth, they will not have the tools to find their own... which in turn leads them to become parents/guardians/caregivers who do not know how to do that for the kids they care for and it becomes a vicious circle of people not knowing they are worthwhile even if they do not have flawless skin, well-toned bodies and stunning hair. I also am aware that banning photoshop is overkill and it does have it's place... let's face it, no one would even buy a magazine let alone a product advertised in it if it was all "real." I just wish they would learn to use some restraint... but I also know that if it sells it won't change.
@mej2011 - I agree with you. Everything starts in the home. However, when EVERYONE around you in print and even on TV and in the movies looks "perfect", it's hard for young people these days to see themselves any other way. And, at the risk of sounding "old" (I'm in my mid-50s), they didn't do all this editing as much as today. Soft filters, different camera angles, etc. Curves were still in then. But, you are right...parents are the core for the values and self-esteem of every child. Maybe the job is just a little harder now in this respect.
I like the idea of the ban. It's about time they started showing the product's actual result and not some fake version. This just goes to show you that you shouldn't believe everything you see in ads either in print or on television.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Hey...have you seen any of those 50 Top Photos of 2011 or 100 Most Powerful Photos of the Year? Hey...guess what? Those photojournalists use Photoshop. Uh-oh....better take away the Pulitzer for photography.
Everyone is familiar with this little magazine called National Geographic. Guess what? In order to even be considered a National Geographic photographer you must have Photoshop. They won't even *look* at your photos if they are SOOC and would, most likely, get you banned for life from submitting photos to them.
However...as a member of the National Press Photographer's Association I can tell you one thing: photojournalists and trade magazine photographers use Photoshop responsibly.
I'm sure a lot of people remember this photo - http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/economist-1-blogspan.jpg
The photographer and photo editor were fired after this photo was printed, and the photographer was banned from the NPPA. In the member's manual, or I think they call it the by-laws or something like that, there is a section about the responsible use of post-processing photos.
Photojournalists are allowed to correct white balance, adjust exposure compensation, sharpen details, and remove smudges "so long as the final result is considered reasonably comparable to that scene with the human eye at the time the photo was taken." You are not allowed to add or remove anything, you cannot change the shape of a person's ass, you cannot change their eye color, you can make to changes other than the very basic.
It's been widely know for years that adult magazines and fashion photography heavily, heavily edit photos. Now people are starting to point the finger at cosmetic photography and suing because "I didn't look that good after using your product." And now people are finally starting to realize "Hey, we need to government to step in cause we're too greedy and superficial to do it ourselves."
Banning Photoshop is overkill. I hate to tell you, but those nice portraits you got from Sears hanging on your mantel were edited with Photoshop. They all are. Banning is overkill, but it would be nice to celebrity photographers, fashion magazines, cosmetics, pretty much any kind of advertising or print photography adhere to the same principals as photojournalists.
Shew. OK. If you actually made it through my entire rant, kudos to you. Also: you have too much free time on your hands.
Too greedy and superficial, or just too stupid?
I would also have to say that I disagree with @debsphotos @marilyn . It is the job of the parent/guardian/ caregiver of young people to instill a sense of worth in that child, not the media. As the child grows, it is their job to find their own self worth, not the media to tell them that they aren't good enough. Then again, I suppose I have a different viewpoint because there never have been and more than likely never will be a lot of people in the media like me. As such, I suppose I had to learn to rely on my own feelings to determine my self worth. I feel that is how it should be. Not the point of the discussion, I know. I'm opinionated, sorry.