Ban on Photo Manipulation
Jan 16, 2018 08:19:53 #
CVS appears to be concerned with false advertising and their name being linked to it. It has nothing to do with our creativity ... unless we're selling something to make money. I have often felt that an advertiser can say anything they want about their product (short of lieing) but if they show a photo of their product - the product should look like the photo. An example: The photos on Bing Cherry Ice Cream boxes show beautiful red cherries set into the ice cream, and plenty of them ... you open the box and can only see flecks of red in the ice cream. That comes under truth in advertising not a concern about our PP our photos.
Jan 16, 2018 08:21:19 #
It has been a shame to watch the race to the idiot proof camera that can be used in all available light conditions by the masses to produce perfect photographs. While many of us spent years learning how to light and compose quality photography, we will soon lament those days when all that is required is a frickin cell phone image and a batch of filters to produce the WOW factor that just might sell a photo. As for touched up photos and the self esteem of women, I could care less as the "Me Too" trend continues to blame men and everything else for their mental issues. What a messed up lot of people...sad.
Jan 16, 2018 08:27:18 #
Howard5252 wrote:
CVS appears to be concerned with false advertising... (show quote)
They should be reported. Surprised their competition has not done so. As a product photographer, I often brought the subject up with their respective marketing departments for a refund--good fun to jerk the competition :)
Jan 16, 2018 08:27:41 #
JeffL
Loc: New Jersey
Brent Rowlett wrote:
It has been a shame to watch the race to the idiot... (show quote)
Deception is deception. Whether it be in false advertising or a male passing himself off as a real man when in reality he is a misogynistic eunuch.
Jan 16, 2018 08:27:48 #
Rick, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ! Adams knew what he was looking for, and it sometimes took him hours in his darkroom to get it.
Jan 16, 2018 08:31:58 #
Jan 16, 2018 08:35:42 #
Photos have been manipulated since day one. How have we ever survived? Glad CVS has come to the rescue, this should fix all of our anxieties.
Jan 16, 2018 08:37:59 #
I think we should also move to not use the color red in paintings in the future. Red may invoke feelings of passion, anger or even warmth.
Jan 16, 2018 08:39:20 #
ToBoldlyGo
Loc: London U.K.
DWU2 wrote:
I think it's just another example of political correctness.
What is? Continuing to contribute to teenage angst and suicide? I'm not saying it's the advertisers fault. But they can and should make a difference. Please, if you don't believe me, there is a comment here from a lady who teaches female students. Have a look.
Jan 16, 2018 08:41:56 #
I've only read the original post and saw a quick news blurb on TV about CVS so I'm not 100% on all the facts
But seriously Truth in Advertising ....... it will never happen!!!
What next Denny's food has to look like the menu photos? Models have to look like the rest of us (world wide)? ...... Not a chance
I could go on and on but to expect society and Marketing to make that big a shift .......it would be nice, but your dreaming
Have you looked at how people in power act? They don't work that way......Yes we should all hope they would.
If CVS is making that change its an advertising ploy.
Forget Make Up...... How about we fix our food chain or our Heath Care systems ......then our Schools and City's....etc.
With 45years as an Advertising Photographer ..... I'm not too hopeful regarding mankind doing good for each other.
In full disclosure I love CVS
But seriously Truth in Advertising ....... it will never happen!!!
What next Denny's food has to look like the menu photos? Models have to look like the rest of us (world wide)? ...... Not a chance
I could go on and on but to expect society and Marketing to make that big a shift .......it would be nice, but your dreaming
Have you looked at how people in power act? They don't work that way......Yes we should all hope they would.
If CVS is making that change its an advertising ploy.
Forget Make Up...... How about we fix our food chain or our Heath Care systems ......then our Schools and City's....etc.
With 45years as an Advertising Photographer ..... I'm not too hopeful regarding mankind doing good for each other.
In full disclosure I love CVS
Jan 16, 2018 08:45:23 #
mwsilvers wrote:
My opinion is that the OP misunderstood CVS's intent and interpreted it to fit his agenda.Perhaps I misunderstood the OP's intent.
Jan 16, 2018 08:45:33 #
My son in preschool had a few “he man” toys. You know the rubber figurines with all the unrealistic bulging muscles. Now over 30 years later he works out daily lifts 400 pounds, is handsome, but still considers himself ugly because in his growing brain an image was created what a man should look like even though he had a father as a normal role model. I would guess young girls given Barbie dolls would have a similar poor self-image. I agree posters for beauty products should not be manipulated as it could create unrealistic expectations. Other photo editing may be okay.
Jan 16, 2018 08:46:24 #
I grow tired of hearing about Ansel Adams and manipulation. It misrepresents his aesthetic and working philosophy. If you read anything about Group f/64 you will find that the movement promoted "straight photography." This means among many things that photography should stand on its own merits and not try to mimic painting or drawing. A photograph according to this aesthetic philosophy a photograph should be sharp, nearly everything in focus and should represent reality. Dodging and burning change are hardly manipulation, the contents of the scene remain intact but the feeling changes with the changing of some tonal relationships.
Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.
http://photographyhistory.blogspot.com/2012/04/group-f64-manifesto-1932.html
http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/notes-on-pictorialism
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/06/william-mortensen-photography-master-macabre
https://petapixel.com/2016/09/22/ansel-adams-wrote-pictorialism-photography-history/
Prior to the straight photography movement was the Pictorialist movement. Soft focus and heavy manipulation were key as was narrative. One of the last proponents of pictorialism was William Mortensen. If you haven't heard of him, it is no surprise as Ansel Adams and Beaumant Newhall despised him and his work and essentially wrote him out of history by Newhall omitting from his History of Photography book.
http://photographyhistory.blogspot.com/2012/04/group-f64-manifesto-1932.html
http://sandykingphotography.com/resources/technical-writing/notes-on-pictorialism
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/06/william-mortensen-photography-master-macabre
https://petapixel.com/2016/09/22/ansel-adams-wrote-pictorialism-photography-history/
Jan 16, 2018 08:51:45 #
Thirty some years ago when my kids were younger and began to watch TV, my wife and I would ask during commercial time, "what are they trying to sell you?". My kids grew up understanding that advertising was, IN PART, a manipulation to get people to want a product. Thirty plus years later, we have gotten to a point where some think it is necessary to "denote" a label for product enhancement in advertising. Should we not also in the bottom right hand corner of all movie frames put a disclaimer noting real frame versus computer manipulated frame.
Jan 16, 2018 08:56:38 #
So, CVS sets an editorial policy regarding images it will use. So what. Abide by it or peddle your images elsewhere.
This reminds me of a controversy (maybe 20 years back) about a cover picture on, IIRC, Outdoor magazine in which the photographer modified an image that the magazine used as the cover shot. The shot was of a lake scene. An observant reader noted that there was a fallen branch at the edge of the lake that was not attached to anything. The photographer had edited out the underwater part of the branch - which was against the magazine’s editorial policy. There was a brouhaha, the photographer was was fired and the magazine published both the before and after shots with an explanation of what happened and an apology.
This reminds me of a controversy (maybe 20 years back) about a cover picture on, IIRC, Outdoor magazine in which the photographer modified an image that the magazine used as the cover shot. The shot was of a lake scene. An observant reader noted that there was a fallen branch at the edge of the lake that was not attached to anything. The photographer had edited out the underwater part of the branch - which was against the magazine’s editorial policy. There was a brouhaha, the photographer was was fired and the magazine published both the before and after shots with an explanation of what happened and an apology.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.