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)
This may not be a good thing.
My guess is that the American public will not reject beauty.
This will just make the perfect models more in demand and add more stress to an industry that's already inflated with pushing the boundaries of beautiful woman. And no, I don't mean 40 something actresss that could have never have made it as a model but sell on their fame. That demography will be the biggest winner, but will create a completely different market for those very young models that are nearly flawless. The envelope will be pushed even harder by those models that CAN and DO have a flawless look naturally. Younger and younger models will be sought out and that alone could make saving the beauty industry, that much more vulnerable, not to mention reducing the number of participants, thus inflating the costs associated with that industry!
As someone that averages one model shoot per week, this should be interesting!!!
SS
Rick Loomis wrote:
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
Rick - You need to study Adams writings. the "manipulation" he taught in his how to books was dodging and burning in. Different papers for the type of photo you were printing. As far as the Artsy Technics of the day he was against them. He did work on his "Moon over -----" several years but it was getting the dodging and burning just right. i know he ruined one photographer that did a lot of manipulation. Perhaps someone can pull the name up. By the way - Did you ever do darkroom work? - DaVE
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
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)
Having worked on both sides of the camera with food photography, the stylist's honesty cannot be questioned. To that end, scrupulous food manufacturers are compelled to be completely forthcoming with their packaging images. The food depicted on the label must include ONLY the ingredients on the can or packaging.
So I totally agree with the move towards truth in advertising. This should not be confused with the magnificent work of the present and past masters of photography, where license can be taken for interpretation and creation of the photographer's vision.
France, last year, did something related to truth in advertising. They banned skinny models on the catwalks. Creating an image of an impossibly thin woman was found to be damaging to young girls' and women's sense of body image, by creating a false reality of what constitutes beauty. I also applaud that move as well
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39821036
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Image Manipulation Police.
"Thought Control"?
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
TheDman wrote:
I wonder if they're going to slap the 'digitally modified' label on photos that have just had white balance adjusted.
No. Any good photographer would bypass this by setting up a custom white balance so it doesn't have to be changed in post.
Having participated in numerous food photography shoots - I cannot tell you how often the photographer, stylist, manufacturer's creative director, and other key people - look at an image on a screen view from a tethered camera - and decide right then and there which images are acceptable - with zero opportunity for manipulation. This happens over 90% of the time on important, high profile accounts.
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)
This is more significant to me about CVS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/business/dealbook/cvs-is-said-to-agree-to-buy-aetna-reshaping-health-care-industry.htmlAlso how will CVS monitor it's "Manipulated Photo" policy?
My comment was in the context of postprocessing in ads. Misrepresentation is different from post-processing of ad work. Otherwise I do not disagree with the link posted.
Gene51 wrote:
No. Any good photographer would bypass this by setting up a custom white balance so it doesn't have to be changed in post.
Having participated in numerous food photography shoots - I cannot tell you how often the photographer, stylist, manufacturer's creative director, and other key people - look at an image on a screen view from a tethered camera - and decide right then and there which images are acceptable - with zero opportunity for manipulation. This happens over 90% of the time on important, high profile accounts.
No. Any good photographer would bypass this by set... (
show quote)
Oh I know, I've been on those shoots. I've also been on the other end, when we receive the photos from the shoot and still tweak them according to what our design looks like. We don't look at the work we get from the shoot as finished products that we're not allowed to touch; we freely adjust to whatever we need.
WDCash
Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA
Photographer Jim wrote:
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.
This is an example of how the venue or how the ima... (
show quote)
What determines if an image is manipulated?
Isn't a lense filter altering the light? What about the difference in perspective between wide angle vs telephoto lenses? Or selectively choosing to uses sharp of soft focus (personnely I wish I could be more selective here)
How about makeup on the models? Hair extensions, dentists whitening teeth?
Multiple flashes remove shadows ,where in reality are there no shadows. Do they have the model standing on a box?
High heels? padded shoulders ,,, in men's suite jackets?
How about shutter speed? We cant slow down our natural vision to make water look like silk, or for that matter freeze motion to hold a water drop in the air.
As already said, basic developing is, at least in some fore, manipulation. And just by selecting the right "white balance" most Digital cameras can spit out what some might think is an as shot out of America picture, which really is already manipulated.
On the other hand I do understand the CV S position, (and I sort of applude their misguided attempt to do something) that due to to the visual overload we live in some, young people for example, are tortured to be what they see in print and on screen. Not that I could be misguided by a picture.
This is a knee jerk reaction, well meaning but not thought out.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
TheDman wrote:
I wonder if they're going to slap the 'digitally modified' label on photos that have just had white balance adjusted.
This has nothing to do with white balance; most likely, they just admitted they've been "air brushing" weight off their models, and have promised to stop doing that.
Keep in mind in this discussion, we are talking about manipulation that changes the thinking about what the product will do and how people should look. Most basic processing involving contrast, brightness, white balance, dodging and burning does not effect the understood meaning of the photo.
These are basic adjustments that are used in the photojournalism industry. Also, it should noted that cutlines/ captions are important in photojournalism in making sure that what is seen in the photo is understood as what occurred rather than viewer possibly misunderstanding the content of the image.
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)
There is a big difference between working on a landscape photo and taking a photo of a woman and use PP to slim her down to sell a product.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.