rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

What I find ironic is the fact that they are doing this on makeup advertising. Isn't the very use of the makeup modifying the original image? If you then modify the photograph are you not just covering up a blemish that the makeup artist missed? And will persons that use makeup be required to wear a label announcing that they have been modified?

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

This is a physical impossibility. There is simply no way that the light and other conditions at any given location will match those same conditions at the same place at any other time or day. There may well be similarities, but a duplicate of what you saw - or more to the point - what the camera saw is not possible to achieve.

There is also the fact that there is not - yet - a camera of any make or type that can accurately, fully reproduce what the human eye can see.

Again, if capturing snapshots is all you wish to do, fine. Go right ahead. I wouldn't dream of stopping you or limiting you. Please accord me the same respect.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

But you have the right to use the pejorative term "snap shot" based on method? You should show respect if you expect to receive respect

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Can't use a pejorative term here? You haven't spent much time on UHH, have you? And, BTW, pejorative is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and since you edited your response while I was typing mine - if one takes a camera, makes no adjustments, but simply points and clicks, that is what is commonly referred to as a snapshot. People take snapshots all the time - at family gatherings, and on and on. I never said there was anything wrong with capturing simple images - again, the sort commonly referred to as "snapshots."

I simply say that I choose another approach, no more, and I recognize any other person's right to do the same, without telling them that they must follow a different path.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Does that mean I have to stop making black and white images? They're not "realistic".

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You must show respect if you expect to receive respect. If you respect those who are documentarians instead of artists, then this would be a good time to express it, because your words drip with disrespect.

And, just to make it clear, I do respect artists even though I don't use your methods, even those who use inflammatory language

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

Very good point.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Both Reuters and BBC routinely fabricate reportage 'photos' and video.

JaiGieEse Loc: Foxworth, MS

At no time in my statements have I said that I do not respect those who whose the "documentary" approach. I respect anyone and everyone who takes the time to use their talents and skills.

Ted H. Funk

Good comment about W. Eugene Smith who was, indeed, a Master Printer like Adams. One of my
PJ friends from MU J-School was also a superb printer, shooting only in B&W for many years.
The term "photojournalism" as it's now written (without being hyphenated as it was earlier) was
coined by my PJ Professor & mentor, Cliff Edom and that's my field of expertise, so you're probably right that I shouldn't compare the two fields.

old poet

Where do we get to the legal realm of false advertizing?

Justin Moonshadow

My suggestion is to label everything as "AR" meaning Aritist's Rendition. NOTHING is as it "exists" in whatever misguided concept of reality CVS is demanding. Your own eyes have differing visions of reality (and let's keep this with a discussion of people): whomever caught your eye last night in the dimly lit, smokey bar, with long batting lashes and pouty red lips (and maybe further influenced by your alcoholic haze) may not be the same today as what you "saw." I have a couple of reasons for using that example.

On the PHOTO side of things, there is NO REALITY....never was and never will be. Whether film or a digital sensor, the camera does not see what your eyes see---sometimes it's more and sometimes less.

What comes out of the camera is the test? Dodging and burning film for prints is alteration. So is your White Balance setting, either on prints from negatives or settings on digital, remembering that with digital I can further manipulate that setting at the time of shooting. Or must everything be shot in RAW? I had a box of filters that altered the image captured. A starburst? Gradient sky behind the model?

Do you prohibit LIGHTING of the model? How you light makes a huge difference in what the camera "sees." Both in the camera and in post processing the brightness and contrast can be altered and those make a picture that looks far different than the live view of the model.

I forget what photographer I was reading about, but I remember that he took a 35mm film camera, 50mm lens, and BW film to shoot prospective models, often just off the street. And then he worked with them for a actual shoot. Those differences were remarkable, but you could see what he found in the model's "look." However, his description of the process would be astonishing to most. Many of the models who looked best in photographs were ones you might not look twice at walking down the street. What the camera saw---and froze in a photographic image---was something that did not exist in "real life." I have met people of whom their images in photos is close to awful, but in person, they are magnetic, captivating and the difference is inexplicable. Likewise the camera may "love" somebody who is most unexciting in person. So where is the "reality?"

They used to fill in the gap between the teeth of Lauren Hutton until she got so recognized that her gap-toothed smile became an asset.

Shaving off folds on the torso....those are popular trigger points in the subject of retouching. Then there should never be a model whose photos are not labelled "surgically enhanced" if they have indeed had any type of plastic surgery that alters their appearance? Or pushup lingerie. High heels are not for easy of walking....but they do alter a woman's appearance both in how her legs appear and in her stature and posture...probably should be banned as manipulative.

Smoothing the skin, eliminating pimples or scars on the face or just getting a "desirable glow"....I think that's where CVS may be going as the issue seems to reference their makeup line. Their WHAT!!??? Talk about something that isn't real---MAKEUP. "Painted Ladies" with foundation that fills and covers, powders that control light, coloring that gives contour enhancement to the look of the face---what about that is not in the same vein as the "photo manipulation" being derided?

Sorry, but CVS is trying for "PC PR" and is completely disingenuous.

Oh, and let's face it that photographers are ARTISTS, rendering a view of a landscape, person, or object in a way that really is not seen otherwise....even "if you were there." From any drawing or painting, the artist has always made decisions about what was presented. Photography is the same way. And the "eye" of talented photographers sees something that most folks don't see as the walk through everyday "reality." and from that we have new artists working in a different medium...

It's lunchtime....I wonder what manipulated food photograph should be banned as never satisfying the craving that the image had given to me?

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

If a photographer shoots a raw image instead of a jpeg which I believe most pros do, it is not the true scene that you raw when putting together and shooting the scene it has to have some work done to it to get the colors,light,and elements to come out just as you saw them, the same happens in camera when shooting jpeg in camera. If you add or alter the image by adding taking out things then it is not the true image. I was a graphic artist and printer for 26 years, before the image went to press we always did at the very least dodging and burning to get the image as close to the true object or scene as possible, when digital editing came about this topic also surfaced as far as I am concerned simple editing is not a misrepresentation but a true representation of the true image only when the image is manipulated to create a false or exaggerated image is it a touched up image. and that image should be marketed as such.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

I guess makeup should be banned, One thing worse that modifying a photo is modifying an actual face.?????

Political correctness unleashed.

tinwhistle

I certainly did not read all 11 pages of this drivel, so maybe somewhere in there someone splashed a bit of common sense. What ever happened to individual responsibility? "Big Brother" at his baddest: "you poor miserable individuals, can't make a determination on your own. I'll tell you what to believe, I'll tell you what the truth is, I'll regulate your whole life". Geez, people, get a grip!!