Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Ban on Photo Manipulation
Page 1 of 18 next> last>>
Jan 15, 2018 15:55:50   #
Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana
 
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:02:12   #
Rick Loomis
 
The greatest manipulator of images was Ansel Adams. Don't believe it , look at the history of his life. In my opinion all of the above arguments are just balony.
Rick Loomis

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:14:00   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
All that is fine and good. But, where does one draw the line? Every one of my photographs have some processing done to them. It's mostly the tried and true darkroom practices of burning, dodging, vignetting, etc. Is that to be considered modifying an image. If so, I'll have to put a P somewhere in the title. What if I modify the processing time to accommodate a tonal separation that didn't exist in the original scene? Does that count too? This is going to get very confusing very quickly.
--Bob

Indiana wrote:
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photogra... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2018 16:20:44   #
Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska
 
Indiana wrote:
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photogra... (show quote)

Nice idea from someone who simply knows nothing about photography. When they try to develope specific guidelines and discover there are no unmanipulated photographs...
it will all fall apart.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:21:39   #
DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area
 
I think it's just another example of political correctness.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:22:54   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
What about media manipulation? Manufacturing consent....

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:24:53   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
C’mon!
We’re talking mangos and pomegranates here!
There is a world of difference between the necessity for “truth in advertising” and freedom of artistic expression in art photography.

Sort of like arguing the relative merits of a steam locomotive and a jellyfish!
Sooner (one hopes) or later someone will ask: “...relative to WHAT?”

Dave

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2018 16:29:27   #
Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA
 
This is an example of how the venue or how the image is used is a key factor as to identifying a photo as having been manipulated or not. I have never objected to the idea that in some areas (journalism, legal forensics, and to some extent advertising) manipulation of an image without acknowledgement is unethical at best, and criminal at worst.

Advertising presents a perplexing situation because while some manipulation may involve no more than a few aesthetic touch ups, other manipulations can be (and may intentionally be) misleading to the point of purposeful deception. Where the line between the two lies, is not always easy to define. However, if an advertiser or publication wishes to demand such upfront notification, the more power to them. I appreciate their efforts.

Where I generally take objection is when people carry this beyond this type of venue, and suggest that those creating photographic art also be required to identify with a label whether they have manipulated the image. Unlike journalism, legal services, or advertising, there is no harm that can be done to the viewer via “deception” in an image presented as visual art. As such, I see no justification whatsoever for creative photographers to identify beforehand when they have used PP, and especially if that is to be done with a physical marking on the print.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:30:12   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
rmalarz wrote:
All that is fine and good. But, where does one draw the line? Every one of my photographs have some processing done to them. It's mostly the tried and true darkroom practices of burning, dodging, vignetting, etc. Is that to be considered modifying an image. If so, I'll have to put a P somewhere in the title. What if I modify the processing time to accommodate a tonal separation that didn't exist in the original scene? Does that count too? This is going to get very confusing very quickly.
--Bob
All that is fine and good. But, where does one dra... (show quote)

It would be silly to extend this to Ansel Adams, Uuglypher, or you. You are artists; using your imaginations is what you do.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:34:18   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
An advertiser can set whatever “standards” they want. That’s not censorship. It may be unworkable—but it’s their business.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:39:04   #
TheDman Loc: USA
 
Indiana wrote:
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photogra... (show quote)


I wonder if they're going to slap the 'digitally modified' label on photos that have just had white balance adjusted.

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2018 16:45:09   #
James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA
 
rmalarz wrote:
All that is fine and good. But, where does one draw the line? Every one of my photographs have some processing done to them. It's mostly the tried and true darkroom practices of burning, dodging, vignetting, etc. Is that to be considered modifying an image. If so, I'll have to put a P somewhere in the title. What if I modify the processing time to accommodate a tonal separation that didn't exist in the original scene? Does that count too? This is going to get very confusing very quickly.
--Bob
All that is fine and good. But, where does one dra... (show quote)


This reminds me of when CDs had a "signal chain" mark (ADD,DDD,AAD) to indicate where analog or digital was used in the process of making the disc. Never mind that all recorded sound starts and ends as analog. and every recording medium adds or removes something of the "real" sound. - The record industry gave up on such labeling.

What is a "real" photograph? I don't know. Even selection of film type and speed changes "reality". Does altering DOF, or using wide angle or telephoto lenses produce "artificial" images? IDK that either. - I'm not a philosopher.

Photography isn't a religion with "holy scriptures" that must be followed. It's about making images.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 16:49:53   #
dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.
 
I think that using a manipulated photo to show unobtainable results from using a product is fraud at best. This would be especially true as related to products concerning teenagers. They are at a vulnerable age concerning their image and how others perceive them and don't have the judgement of an adult. I have a feeling this is what CVS is trying to prevent.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 17:02:22   #
Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN
 
This is similar in to the ban in France.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/photoshop-models-france-ban-2017-october-a7975351.html

In the US there are supposed to be laws involving representation of and claims about products. When I was studying media law in college I was handed the following case study as an assignment.

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/sandpaper_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_v._Colgate-Palmolive_Co.

Advertising can make things look better but there is a line in terms of making false claims. As standards of beauty has triggered a health crisis. I think that such actions are necessary for consumer protection. However, again this has no impact on photography when used as artistic expression.

Reply
Jan 15, 2018 17:16:21   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
Indiana wrote:
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photography & Reality" here is an interesting development from a major retailer that doesn't surprise me...and in fact, I was surprised that someone had not done it yet.

"CVS Health plans to announce Monday (1/15/2018) that it will ban manipulation in its store brand makeup marketing and promotional displays amid growing awareness of the harmful nature of touched-up images."
"...the decision reflects an acknowledgement that 'unrealistic body images' are a significant driver of health issues, 'especially among women.' "We're all consuming massive amounts of media everyday and we're not necessarily looking at imagery that is real and true," To try to hold ourselves up to be like those women is Impossible because even those women don't look like how they appear in those photographs" The retailer will place an icon with a "digitally modified" warning on any marketing materials that don't comply by 2020*

On my comments on "Photograpy & Reality" earlier yesterday I suggested that the icon's OCC (out of camera) and PP (post processing) be used on photo's to acknowledge to the viewer what they are looking at...original camera/lens shot, or photo with post processing (manipulation). This article by USA TODAY seems to suggest an awareness of misrepresentation by presenting a photo as reality, when in fact, it has been manipulated without acknowledgement, which in fact, supports my earlier position on representation/misrepresentation on the prior thread. I have been surprised that a challenge to the "truth in advertising" clause has not been applied and enforced on the visual media by consumer and product (visual) users. Interesting development. Please respond and please stay on topic!

* see USA TODAY by Nathan Bomey posted 1/15/2018.
As a follow-up to yesterdays thread "Photogra... (show quote)


I applaud CVS for this policy. I agree that unrealistic body images in advertising can be harmful. I doubt the advertising industry in general will adopt this policy, since they depend on making things look better than they really are. But your extension from this story to labeling ALL photographs as manipulated or not is ridiculous. I assume you mean this as a voluntary thing, for which I would not volunteer. I owe nobody an explanation of how I create my images, since they are not photojournalism or documentary. If you mean that someone (I can't imagine who) should require photographers to adopt these labels, even more ridiculous.

Reply
Page 1 of 18 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.