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.

The OP sounds like he's saying just that. He said in his first post, "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). "

The implication of that statement is that images straight out of the camera are more pure and less manipulated, and post processed images should be marked with effectively a Scarlet Letter, and could therefore be considered less legitimate. I'm saying jpegs coming straight out of the camera are also post processed by the camera, which is why I thought his premise was ridiculous. And today some cameras can crop and create special effects, removing vignetting, change sharpness, contrast , color tone, straighten verticals affected by barrel distortion, remove chromatic aberration, create HDR images, as well as other things. Only, the in-camera settings usually don't work as well as third-party software. I think it's hypocritical for people to suggest that images straight out of the camera are somehow more legitimate. Or perhaps it's just ignorance of what's happening to the images in camera. As a result, I do not believe my earlier comment was irrelevant.

You seem to have raised at least three different subjects in this relatively short post
(1) the OP's proposal for icons
(2) what CVS is doing
(3) in-camera processing

I strongly dislike long posts. I have an even greater dislike for threads that go in several different directions. Topic (1) really ought to be discussed in the thread in which it was raised. Topic (3) is a discussion all of its own. Thus, my comments right now will relate only to topic (2) - but I know the other two are there.

As I said previously, I believe CVS is commendable in trying to address a real issue {I should mention here that I have two daughters - both of whom have survived their teen years relatively unscathed}. I don't know what the authors of this policy know about PP, and I don't know what the authors of the press release know about anything, but I am quite certain that this is a policy to eliminate "airbrushing" away pounds and blemishes. The OP makes it sound much more than that, but I don't think it is, and raising all those other issues in the context of this new policy is crazy-making - the sort of thing that generates lots of heat but little light.

As far as the other stuff is concerned, I hope we can rise above it. I have tried to make clear that I respect the work of artists, and I hope you can respect the work of documentarians such as me.

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 "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.