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 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
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)
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.
DWU2
Loc: Phoenix Arizona area
I think it's just another example of political correctness.
What about media manipulation? Manufacturing consent....
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
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.
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.
An advertiser can set whatever “standards” they want. That’s not censorship. It may be unworkable—but it’s their business.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.