# Truth in Photoshopping



## Ysarex

France Aims To Get Real: Retouched Photos Of Models Now Require A Label


----------



## SquarePeg

Moving in the right direction!


----------



## Peeb

Have only read OP -  not the linked article but ... Not a terrible idea!


----------



## smoke665

Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?


----------



## SquarePeg

smoke665 said:


> Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?



 I think with less photoshopping there will be fewer surgeries as young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.


----------



## smoke665

SquarePeg said:


> young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.



Seriously? Forget the surgery for now, but let me ask something, how many women including yourself, use makeup? Why do they do It? Isn't it an attempt to create the illusion of a more pleasing look? The point is I think women have been striving for the ideal unattainable body image far longer then PS has been around. Frankly I see this as nothing more than a useless "feel good" law. Women will still spend billions on cosmetics, clothes, and surgeries, to achieve the perceived ideal look.


----------



## SquarePeg

Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.

ETA - please don’t quote me out of context


----------



## Overread

Most women cannot afford extensive plastic surgery - and most under 18 can't even legally undergo such vanity treatment in many countries. 
However they can starve themselves, especially during an age range where their bodies are maturing and honestly need more energy and food than otherwise in order to develop in a healthy natural way. By impacting the fake achievements of photoshop it goes a long way to helping improve real impressions of people rather than always aiming for those fake appearances that; whilst pleasing to the eye; are physically impossible for healthy women.


----------



## smoke665

SquarePeg said:


> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context



So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit? 
Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.


----------



## Tomasko

smoke665 said:


> it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?


This is exactly what bothers me about it. Today it's body shape, tomorrow it could be removing blemishes. What's next?

Idealising beauty has always been a very important part of human society, only the standards are constantly shifting. Standards were usually a result of current situation. When food was scarce, a more corpulent body shape was desired, because it indicated the person is well fed and can potentially take care of kids. Nowadays we have a huge problem with obesity in the world, so a thin look is naturally seen as a better alternative in order to fight it. Is trying to look more appealing and be more healthy a bad thing?

If someone has mental issues, something's wrong and he/she needs to see a specialist, but I can guarantee you that sentence "this image has been altered" won't help a bit.


----------



## Peeb

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
Click to expand...

Easy to say if you don't have a daughter with these issues but I can assure you that no amount of love can prevent an eating disorder. 

Are you suggesting that anorexia/bulemia is the product of bad parenting??  I find this conclusion troubling and perhaps poorly thought out.


----------



## Peeb

Tomasko said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what bothers me about it. Today it's body shape, tomorrow it could be removing blemishes. What's next?
> 
> Idealising beauty has always been a very important part of human society, only the standards are constantly shifting. Standards were usually a result of current situation. When food was scarce, a more corpulent body shape was desired, because it indicated the person is well fed and can potentially take care of kids. Nowadays we have a huge problem with obesity in the world, so a thin look is naturally seen as a better alternative in order to fight it. Is trying to look more appealing and be more healthy a bad thing?
> 
> If someone has mental issues, something's wrong and he/she needs to see a specialist, but I can guarantee you that sentence "this image has been altered" won't help a bit.
Click to expand...

So it should not be pursued because it MIGHT  not be effective?  I would only take this approach to inconsequential problems.


----------



## Destin

Agreed. This seems like a feel good law that isn’t really going to change anything in the real world. People will completely overlook the fact that it’s photoshopped and continue to view them as they always have. 

95% of the world already knows that photos of models in advertising are heavily photoshopped. Very few people would be surprised by this, and therefore labeling it as such will have little effect.


----------



## Destin

Peeb said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what bothers me about it. Today it's body shape, tomorrow it could be removing blemishes. What's next?
> 
> Idealising beauty has always been a very important part of human society, only the standards are constantly shifting. Standards were usually a result of current situation. When food was scarce, a more corpulent body shape was desired, because it indicated the person is well fed and can potentially take care of kids. Nowadays we have a huge problem with obesity in the world, so a thin look is naturally seen as a better alternative in order to fight it. Is trying to look more appealing and be more healthy a bad thing?
> 
> If someone has mental issues, something's wrong and he/she needs to see a specialist, but I can guarantee you that sentence "this image has been altered" won't help a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it should not be pursued because it MIGHT  not be effective?  I would only take this approach to inconsequential problems.
Click to expand...


No. But putting more laws on the books just for the sake of putting laws on the books is a terrible approach to government. 

Frankly, I don’t see how the government should get a say in what’s printed in a privately owned and published advertisement.


----------



## Peeb

Destin said:


> Agreed. This seems like a feel good law that isn’t really going to change anything in the real world. People will completely overlook the fact that it’s photoshopped and continue to view them as they always have.
> 
> 95% of the world already knows that photos of models in advertising are heavily photoshopped. Very few people would be surprised by this, and therefore labeling it as such will have little effect.


Says the guy without an eating disorder.  Let's pull the health warning off cigarettes while we're at it.  

Seriously, if you haven't lived through this issue, you  literally have no idea how big this problem is.


----------



## Tomasko

Peeb said:


> So it should not be pursued because it MIGHT not be effective? I would only take this approach to inconsequential problems.


No, because it WON'T be effective at all. Mental issues need to be treated properly by a professional and no amount of words under images will prevent them.



Peeb said:


> Let's pull the health morning off cigarettes while we're at it.


I don't know a single person who was put off by warnings on cigarette boxes.



Peeb said:


> Seriously, if you haven't lived through this issue, you literally have no idea how big this problem is.


We know how big the problem is, we're just not delusional when it comes to solving it. It's like reading somewhere that certain food causes cancer and thinking avoiding eating it will prevent cancer from affecting your kids... No, it won't.


----------



## SquarePeg

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
Click to expand...


First of all, your putting words in my mouth.  I don’t believe I said that at all.  When people reapond with “what your saying is...” why is that always followed by their own interpretation of the original which twists the meaning? 

Secondly, I don’t understand what your references to corsets etc have to do with this.  Yes women, and men to some extent, have always tried to enhance their looks - I don’t think that’s news to anyone.  But everyone knew everyone else was wearing corsets or makeup or whatever. Young girls looking at magazines should know the images were altered and that these models do not in reality look like that. Changing perceptions on body image and what’s attainable is not going to happen overnight.  I stand by my original response that this is a step in the right direction.   

And as a parent, I resent your last sentence as I never said anything was a substitute for parental guidance.


----------



## Destin

Peeb said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. This seems like a feel good law that isn’t really going to change anything in the real world. People will completely overlook the fact that it’s photoshopped and continue to view them as they always have.
> 
> 95% of the world already knows that photos of models in advertising are heavily photoshopped. Very few people would be surprised by this, and therefore labeling it as such will have little effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy without an eating disorder.  Let's pull the health warning off cigarettes while we're at it.
> 
> Seriously, if you haven't lived through this issue, you  literally have no idea how big this problem is.
Click to expand...


I work in healthcare. I see the effects of this first hand all the time.  

And I’m telling you that a warning on a photo isn’t gonna fix it.


----------



## smoke665

Peeb said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say if you don't have a daughter with these issues but I can assure you that no amount of love can prevent an eating disorder.
> 
> Are you suggesting that anorexia/bulemia is the product of bad parenting??  I find this conclusion troubling and perhaps poorly thought out.
Click to expand...


Of course not, but blaming advertising for the problem is not the solution. I have empathy for any parent dealing with teen issues, we raised 3 kids, who put a lot of gray hairs on my head. Sometimes even professional help doesn't work. We have a 30 year old that is still struggling.

Parents can though be a positive influence on their children.


----------



## Peeb

Destin said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. This seems like a feel good law that isn’t really going to change anything in the real world. People will completely overlook the fact that it’s photoshopped and continue to view them as they always have.
> 
> 95% of the world already knows that photos of models in advertising are heavily photoshopped. Very few people would be surprised by this, and therefore labeling it as such will have little effect.
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy without an eating disorder.  Let's pull the health warning off cigarettes while we're at it.
> 
> Seriously, if you haven't lived through this issue, you  literally have no idea how big this problem is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work in healthcare. I see the effects of this first hand all the time.
> 
> And I’m telling you that a warning on a photo isn’t gonna fix it.
Click to expand...

 A public recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction, however.


----------



## smoke665

@SquarePeg and now your taking my statements out of context. I don't know you other than what I've seen posted on here. It would be presumptuous of me to make any comments on you as a parent. 

As to the law, you have an opinion, I respect that. I have an alternate opinion, and i hope you would reapect that. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, nor does it affect a law in another country.


----------



## smoke665

Peeb said:


> A public recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction, however.



Public recognition of any problem like this is good, but wouldn't public service announcements on the matter explaining the problem and offering help options be a better solution then a disclaimer on a photoshopped ad?


----------



## Peeb

smoke665 said:


> @SquarePeg and now your taking my statements out of context. I don't know you other than what I've seen posted on here. It would be presumptuous of me to make any comments on you as a parent.
> 
> As to the law, you have an opinion, I respect that. I have an alternate opinion, and i hope you would reapect that. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, nor does it affect a law in another country.


You are an intelligent and thoughtful member of this community who I respect so I say this with all due respect- your post unequivocally states that warnings are not needed if folks are good parents.

 Perhaps this is not what you meant to say – but it is what you typed.


----------



## Peeb

smoke665 said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> A public recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public recognition of any problem like this is good, but wouldn't public service announcements on the matter explaining the problem and offering help options be a better solution then a disclaimer on a photoshopped ad?
Click to expand...

 Respectfully, in my opinion we need both-  why feel I need to choose one or the other?   I find this thread to be so discouraging that I believe I shall unsubscribe from this particular issue and wish you all a fine Sunday.  Be well


----------



## Overread

Measures like this on their own won't change much; but the concept is that you have several measures of a similar type for a combined effort. 

For smoking they don't just put nasty photos onto packs; they don't just reduce advertising on them; they don't just put out commercials on TV for help-quit kits etc.... The individual elements are small, but combined they present a unified approach toward changing attitudes.

So yes this measure is one small step; it might be one of many little steps that adds up to a combined series of factors that helps engage real change.


----------



## smoke665

Peeb said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> @SquarePeg and now your taking my statements out of context. I don't know you other than what I've seen posted on here. It would be presumptuous of me to make any comments on you as a parent.
> 
> As to the law, you have an opinion, I respect that. I have an alternate opinion, and i hope you would reapect that. Doesn't make either of us right or wrong, nor does it affect a law in another country.
> 
> 
> 
> You are and intelligent and thoughtful member of this community who I respect so I say this with all due respect- your post unequivocally states that warnings are not needed if folks are good parents.
> 
> Perhaps this is not what you meant to say – but it is what you typed.
Click to expand...


No I did not say this, from my first post "As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents." Parents should always strive to be the influence that counts in their child's life. Sometimes even that fails given the worldly influences around them, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't try.


----------



## benhasajeep

I agree with it.  But not just for modeling.  So many companies use altered photo's to make their products look better or provided better results than they actually do.  And to me that's false advertising.  Epsecially these weight loss (you name it) where they show these overweight / out of shape people, and then with them lean, fit, and trim.  When in reality they paid fit people to get fat.  And just reversed the order of the pictures!


----------



## SCraig

Does the law by chance state how large and how visible the disclaimer is required to be?  If not it will be in 0.1 point black text on a black portion of the photograph.

For what it's worth I also believe that it's a nonsense law.  One that serves only to put a law on the books to make people think the lawmakers are doing something.


----------



## tirediron

They need to expand the law so it covers images used on Internet dating profiles!!!!


----------



## Destin

tirediron said:


> They need to expand the law so it covers images used on Internet dating profiles!!!!



A LAW I COULD GET BEHIND! 

#tiredironforpresident


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?


Surgery is real ... Photoshopping is not real.


----------



## Destin

Gary A. said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Surgery is real ... Photoshopping is not real.
Click to expand...


That doesn’t make it a healthy thing to promote.


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Forget the surgery for now, but let me ask something, how many women including yourself, use makeup? Why do they do It? Isn't it an attempt to create the illusion of a more pleasing look? The point is I think women have been striving for the ideal unattainable body image far longer then PS has been around. Frankly I see this as nothing more than a useless "feel good" law. Women will still spend billions on cosmetics, clothes, and surgeries, to achieve the perceived ideal look.
Click to expand...

Men invented the high heel shoe, push-up bras and the idea that women "need" cosmetics to look better.


----------



## Gary A.

SquarePeg said:


> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context


I like thigh gap.


----------



## Gary A.

SquarePeg said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think with less photoshopping there will be fewer surgeries as young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.
Click to expand...

Per the article, just labeling that a photo has been photoshopped may also stem a flow of unnecessary surgery and may foster a realization that the viewed body type is crafted by imagination rather than genes, diet, exercise and surgery.


----------



## Gary A.

Destin said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there's nothing limiting the models from cosmetic surgery or other body "enhancing" surgery. What's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Surgery is real ... Photoshopping is not real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn’t make it a healthy thing to promote.
Click to expand...

The question was what's the difference. I was explaining the difference between the two.  I have no wishes to promote either methodology as proper or healthy ... but I do have a desire for transparency.


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no data to support your assertion(s). It was a much different world back then.  Hopefully we are progressing toward a better a more gender equitable world.  The more transparency and truth ... even truth in advertising is progress.  And France is actually leading way, blazing a path.


----------



## terri

Exactly what Gary said.   Isn't it better for a certain more impressionable audience to look at these kinds of photos, see the disclaimer, and be able to immediately say to themselves, "It's not real"?   

Of course, parents are part of the reinforcement of healthy body images, but they can't be around 24/7 to monitor everything kids see. 

I applaud the the effort here to keeping things real with this kind of photography.


----------



## Gary A.

Peeb said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say if you don't have a daughter with these issues but I can assure you that no amount of love can prevent an eating disorder.
> 
> Are you suggesting that anorexia/bulemia is the product of bad parenting??  I find this conclusion troubling and perhaps poorly thought out.
Click to expand...

I am not saying, Truth in Advertising, will correct all/any/some/most/et al ills of society.  But if it contributes and helps all/any/some/most/et al feel better about themselves ... then why not use a simple label as another piece of a "well" society puzzle.  If Truth in Advertising allows impressionable people to realize that even professionals aren't resorting to surgery or starvation ... that is a good thing.  None of this will happen overnight, but it is good that it has started.


----------



## Gary A.

Destin said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly what bothers me about it. Today it's body shape, tomorrow it could be removing blemishes. What's next?
> 
> Idealising beauty has always been a very important part of human society, only the standards are constantly shifting. Standards were usually a result of current situation. When food was scarce, a more corpulent body shape was desired, because it indicated the person is well fed and can potentially take care of kids. Nowadays we have a huge problem with obesity in the world, so a thin look is naturally seen as a better alternative in order to fight it. Is trying to look more appealing and be more healthy a bad thing?
> 
> If someone has mental issues, something's wrong and he/she needs to see a specialist, but I can guarantee you that sentence "this image has been altered" won't help a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it should not be pursued because it MIGHT  not be effective?  I would only take this approach to inconsequential problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. But putting more laws on the books just for the sake of putting laws on the books is a terrible approach to government.
> 
> Frankly, I don’t see how the government should get a say in what’s printed in a privately owned and published advertisement.
Click to expand...

It happens every single day ... i.e. cigarettes, drugs, automobiles, booze, et cetera ... government dictated/enforced disclaimers are everywhere and we are better off because of the disclaimers and transparencies .


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using makeup to enhance your looks is not comparable to starving yourself to attain a “thigh gap” that was created via Photoshop.
> 
> ETA - please don’t quote me out of context
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that it's okay for women to reach for an unattainable look, it's only the extent of the process you have a problem with. Who decides the limit?
> Even if it does slow down one thing which i doubt, 10 more will pop up. Corsets date back to the 16th century, with the bindings so tight in some cases it took the assistance of a strong helper to tie them. Surely that couldn't have been healthy. The oriental practice of foot binding dates back a millennium and was practiced to create the idealized foot. The list goes on and on. Like prohibition in this country, people still drank, and this law will do little if anything to change feminine perceptions of the ideal image.
> As to the effect on young girls you're missing what should be "the most important influence" on any child's life - the parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Easy to say if you don't have a daughter with these issues but I can assure you that no amount of love can prevent an eating disorder.
> 
> Are you suggesting that anorexia/bulemia is the product of bad parenting??  I find this conclusion troubling and perhaps poorly thought out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, but blaming advertising for the problem is not the solution. I have empathy for any parent dealing with teen issues, we raised 3 kids, who put a lot of gray hairs on my head. Sometimes even professional help doesn't work. We have a 30 year old that is still struggling.
> 
> Parents can though be a positive influence on their children.
Click to expand...

Nobody is blaming advertising for unnecessary cosmetic surgery or eating disorders or the like ... that would be just plain silly.  But .... the big but ... advertising is part of the problem, advertising contributes to the problem and if a simple inexpensive label can *help* to balance out the negative by contributing to the positive ... then why not ... what do we have to lose?


----------



## Gary A.

smoke665 said:


> Peeb said:
> 
> 
> 
> A public recognition of the problem is a step in the right direction, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public recognition of any problem like this is good, but wouldn't public service announcements on the matter explaining the problem and offering help options be a better solution then a disclaimer on a photoshopped ad?
Click to expand...

Another step in the right direction.  This isn't an either/or proposition.


----------



## Gary A.

I came a bit late to this party.


----------



## Braineack

TRIGGER WARNING ALL THE THINGS!


----------



## Tomasko

Gary A. said:


> what do we have to lose?


Common sense? Sanity?

You can't post warnings, disclaimers etc all over the world, that's just silly. Advertising is a result, not the cause. Companies do studies and then do adverts like they do because it works. If people would deem such looks etc. inappropriate, companies would have to adapt their strategies. But people WANT to see attractive individuals. They instinctively prefer nice looking partners and not fatties who can't fit into a car. It's just a fact.



Gary A. said:


> if a simple inexpensive label can *help* to balance out the negative by contributing to the positive


The thing is, it can't. Exactly the same like a text under a photo won't prevent anyone from stealing your photos. Or like a warning on a box of cigarettes won't prevent people from smoking. That's a very naive way of looking at the world.

Seriously, what kind of people are we talking about here who would be affected by that text? Would you suddenly prefer fat/unhealthy people over healthy fit looking ones? Just because of some silly text told you what you already (hopefully) know, that the image was processed? Would you suddenly change your eating habits or ...?


----------



## limr

Tomasko said:


> Seriously, what kind of people are we talking about here who would be affected by that text?



12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos _that they think are real_ and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."

_Adults who know better are *not* the target audience for these advertisements. 
_
You know who else sees those texts? People who may decide to take their business elsewhere if they don't like that a company puts out heavily edited images to make their stuff look better.


----------



## Gary A.

Tomasko said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> what do we have to lose?
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense? Sanity?
> 
> You can't post warnings, disclaimers etc all over the world, that's just silly. Advertising is a result, not the cause. Companies do studies and then do adverts like they do because it works. If people would deem such looks etc. inappropriate, companies would have to adapt their strategies. But people WANT to see attractive individuals. They instinctively prefer nice looking partners and not fatties who can't fit into a car. It's just a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> if a simple inexpensive label can *help* to balance out the negative by contributing to the positive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is, it can't. Exactly the same like a text under a photo won't prevent anyone from stealing your photos. Or like a warning on a box of cigarettes won't prevent people from smoking. That's a very naive way of looking at the world.
> 
> Seriously, what kind of people are we talking about here who would be affected by that text? Would you suddenly prefer fat/unhealthy people over healthy fit looking ones? Just because of some silly text told you what you already (hopefully) know, that the image was processed? Would you suddenly change your eating habits or ...?
Click to expand...

My ex, who used to smoke would say that she finds " ... it hard to believe that people who can read still smoke...". 

There is no data or research stating that a label will or will not dissuade eating/self-esteem/et al disorder(s) ... but until we have hard facts giving up a little "sanity" and/or "common sense" is little to give up if a label can positively and pro-actively affect a person's life. Besides, I don't buy your point of common sense or sanity.  Why do you seem to have knowledge of common sense and sanity that many of us on this thread, seemingly by your judgement, lack?

Rather than your take, I think the opposite, that it would be a lack sanity and a lack of common sense not to promote transparency with a simple label. Who do you expect to protect by not labeling ... huge cosmetic and clothing conglomerates? (Lord knows they need protection from government dictated labeling.)

I live near the seashore.  I remember at low tide seeing a group of men ravishing the tidepools harvesting tubs and tubs of sea stars.  I ran ahead of them grabbing star stars, that would have been destined to be a dried up novelty item in some shop, and tossing them into deeper water.  They laughed at me saying it won't make a difference. I pickup up another sea star, tossed it into deeper water and told them "It made a difference to that one ...".  In summary, just because you think it won't make a difference to a person suffering from self-esteem issues ... possibly the mere knowledge that a photo of thigh gap, (as an example), is fake ... it just might make a difference, maybe a small difference ... maybe a big difference, to an individual or a group of individuals.  You and I don't know.  Not knowing the true extent and impact a label could have, I'd rather side on the chance that any positive impact is better than no impact at all.


----------



## limr

The impact of the media on eating disorders in children and adolescents

"Research studies have shown that young people frequently report body dissatisfaction, with adolescent girls experiencing more body dissatisfaction than boys (11,12). Adolescent girls generally want to weigh less, while adolescent boys want to be bigger and stronger. A meta-analysis of 25 studies involving female subjects, examined the effect of exposure to media images of the slender body ideal. Body image was significantly more negative after viewing thin media images than after viewing images of either average size models, plus size models or inanimate objects. This effect was found to be stronger in women younger than 19 years of age (13).

Tiggemann et al (14) studied body concerns in adolescent girls (aged 16 years old) and attempted to understand the underlying motivations for their wish to be thin. The factor exerting the strongest pressure to be thin was the media. Despite the fact that these adolescent girls clearly articulated a desire to be thinner, they also described how this did not necessarily mean they were dissatisfied with their bodies. The authors found that the girls had a surprisingly well-developed understanding of the media and its possible role in influencing self-image. The authors suggested that this understanding may serve to moderate against overwhelming media forces."

Eating Disorders and the Role of the Media

"A recent naturalistic experiment conducted in Fiji provides strong evidence to support the hypothesis that the media has a significant role in the development of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology (Becker, Burwell, Herzog, Hamburg, & Gilman, 2002). Until recently, Fiji was a relatively media-naïve society with little Western mass-media influence. In this unique study, the eating attitudes and behaviors of Fijian adolescent girls were measured prior to the introduction of regional television and following prolonged exposure. The results indicate that following the television exposure, these adolescents exhibited a significant increase in disordered eating attitudes and behaviors.

A number of studies have examined the correlation between the use of mass media and body satisfaction, eating disorder symptomatology, and negative affect. The majority of the studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between media exposure and eating pathology, body dissatisfaction and negative affect (Stice, Schupak-Neuberg, Shaw, & Stein, 1994; Stice & Shaw, 1994; Utter, Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, & Story, 2003). However, the strength of the correlations have varied within and between studies and with type of media exposure (Tiggeman, 2003; Vaughan & Fouts, 2003)."


----------



## terri

Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?


----------



## limr

terri said:


> Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?



Sorry, bad habit


----------



## Gary A.

Geeze ... so you're not just shooting from the hip.  What a concept, to base one's arguments on actual facts.


----------



## Gary A.

limr said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, bad habit
Click to expand...

Man, I'd hate to take a class from you.


----------



## Tomasko

limr said:


> 12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos _that they think are real_ and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."


THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.

Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach! 
Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent. 

Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
a.) putting a label on drugs
b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
?

I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them. 
It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.


----------



## terri

Bubble?    For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.  

You want unreality?   False advertising?   Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?


----------



## limr

Tomasko said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos _that they think are real_ and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."
> 
> 
> 
> THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.
> 
> Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach!
> Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent.
> 
> Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
> a.) putting a label on drugs
> b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
> ?
> 
> I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them.
> It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.
Click to expand...


Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked? When did parents start actually discouraging their children to smoke or punishing them for doing so? When we started to learn about and understand the negative effects of smoking on health.

And no, it wasn't the label alone that made people stop smoking, but rather public awareness of the health effects, advertising efforts, and social pressure. That all did _not_ come about just by parents reading some studies about lung cancer and teaching their kids about it.

You're oversimplifying the arguments of those who think this is a step in the right direction. Did anyone here say that the labels alone will solve the problem? No. But it's just one element in a public awareness campaign to bring attention to the problem. No parents are going to be able to teach their kids about anything if they themselves are not aware of the issues.


----------



## Destin

I mean, we can’t label everything. The world is screwed. 

The day that we put a warning on coffee cups that the coffee inside was hot was the day that we started sliding downhill hard with this type of stuff. 

Seriously.


----------



## limr

"Know the Facts:" Resources for Consumers

"_It is the case that gave rise to the attacks on “frivolous lawsuits” in the United States. Almost everyone seems to know about it. And there’s a good chance everything you know about it is wrong."_


----------



## Derrel

Destin said:


> I mean, we can’t label everything. The world is screwed.
> 
> The day that we put a warning on coffee cups that the coffee inside was hot was the day that we started sliding downhill hard with this type of stuff.
> 
> Seriously.



We should bring back asbestos insulation in all our new school construction products.  And make sure that pregnant women drink plenty of beer and wine during those all-important first- and second-trimester weeks! And what the heck, let's start a movement to drive tipsy-buzzed, but NOT drunk-drunk.

Yeah...the world was officially f*$(ed once we started warning people about bad sh!+. Warnings-schwarnings, amiright?


----------



## JonA_CT

Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible. 

This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.


----------



## Tomasko

terri said:


> Bubble?    For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.
> 
> You want unreality?   False advertising?   Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?


I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.



limr said:


> Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked?


If parents pass on their kids their skewed view of the world, no amount of labels will ever change that. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. You're saying that it's aimed to help 12 year olds, but those are already taught by their parents. They see their mother puts tons of make-up on her face, dresses nicely, tries to loose weight over and over... You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.



JonA_CT said:


> Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible.
> 
> This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.


That's why you don't teach your kid to avoid only certain stuff you explicitly name for them, you rather teach them to think for themselves and to be able to judge the situations they come across. That's usually the difference between good and bad parenting.


----------



## JonA_CT

Tomasko said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bubble?    For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.
> 
> You want unreality?   False advertising?   Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If parents pass on their kids their skewed view of the world, no amount of labels will ever change that. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. You're saying that it's aimed to help 12 year olds, but those are already taught by their parents. They see their mother puts tons of make-up on her face, dresses nicely, tries to loose weight over and over... You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> JonA_CT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible.
> 
> This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why you don't teach your kid to avoid only certain stuff you explicitly name for them, you rather teach them to think for themselves and to be able to judge the situations they come across. That's usually the difference between good and bad parenting.
Click to expand...


Sure. You’re also insinuating that being a great parents allows kids to develop their full abstract thinking ability earlier than it actually does. Those pathways are still developing right through college. 

I work with kids and parents daily, and great parents still have kids who make bad decisions. It’s normal.

I don’t understand the significant kick back though...seriously...it costs them nothing. Y’all are saying that everyone knows anyways. So why be upset that they have to label it?


----------



## terri

Tomasko said:


> I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.



Oh, come now.    You're stepping outside what is being discussed here in order to shore up your position.    The issue is about labels for altered images of models, in advertising, to a targeted, gullible young audience - not hand-tinted portraits of Aunt Tilly.   

Did you look at the articles that were linked to?    It's an actual issue that's been shown to have a negative effect on young people, trying to live up to impossible ideals as portrayed unrealistically by advertisements.

If you know anything about the kind of photographic processes I employ, you'd understand that I actually know quite a lot about altering images to present a different reality.   The difference is, I'm not trying to pretend it's real.


----------



## Gary A.

Tomasko said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos _that they think are real_ and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."
> 
> 
> 
> THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.
> 
> Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach!
> Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent.
> 
> Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
> a.) putting a label on drugs
> b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
> ?
> 
> I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them.
> It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.
Click to expand...

Both (period). Everything helps. People learn differently, absorb differently. The first rule of advertising is repetition. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em. Parents tell their children, a label reinforcing that message, a PSA reminding them of their parenting ... what's the point of not adding a label ... or is the point merely to be right?

Conversely, where Terri exploits the creative end of photography, I made a living based on documentary photography. We're coming from opposite ends of the photographic spectrum yet reached a similar conclusion.


----------



## vintagesnaps

I've been watching Project Runway and this season they're using models of various body types and sizes. It seems to be part of a developing trend and of course, Paris has always been one of the centers of fashion. So it doesn't seem like the worst idea in the world to encourage truth or realism in advertising.

You don't know sometimes how much something may have some positive impact. If the change in labeling ads helps anyone by increasing awareness then it's worth trying.


----------



## limr

Tomasko said:


> *You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? *Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.



No, I don't, and I never said I did. I said it was part of the process of raising public awareness. _For the second time_, don't oversimplify my argument in order to make yours look stronger.


----------



## smoke665

Wow, lot of opinions brought out for and against while I was driving. Interesting reading them to catch up. Not sure that anyone's minds are changed, but a good healthy discussion on a worthwhile topic nonetheless.

@Gary A. brought up an interesting point that most seem to have overlooked -"advertising contributes to the problem".  In my early newspaper days, we targeted our audience no doubt about it, but today, the sophistication of the targeting is mind blowing. Just going to this forum is showing up somewhere on someone's target list. If your child does a Google search for homework answers, it showed up in a database somewhere, and the next time they go to Google, there are magically adds tailored specifically for them showing up. Get on FB and guess what, same thing. Sadly the advertisers and the media, are doing a poor job of regulating themselves, so yes some of the stuff kids see today may well be slipping past the parents and not appropriate for them. If labeling an ad that it has been altered, will help by all means go for it, but if the viewer is naive enough to be fooled by the image in the first place, are they going to be rational enough to heed the warning. I mean the ads today are slick, they've spent a ton of money to work on targeted subliminal  messages that would fool even the most astute viewer.

As someone said earlier, I wouldn't disagree with labeling all ads.


----------



## limr

I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.


----------



## Braineack

Let's talk about to content of those smut magazines you girls read... then lets talk about the shitty crummy photoshopping.  i saw something good on FB the other day about this very topic, let me find it...

here it is: Artist Redesigns 'Cliché And Sexist' Girls' Magazine Cover With Brilliant Results | HuffPost UK


Katherine Young on Twitter


----------



## smoke665

limr said:


> I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.



Referring to the sophistication of the targeting and the message, as an example  from 5 years ago. How Target Knew a High School Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Parents Did | TIME.com The sophistication has only gotten more advanced.


----------



## vintagesnaps

What smut magazines? The most recent subscription I had was to The Hockey News. (Which reminds me I gotta renew that.)


----------



## limr

Braineack said:


> Let's talk about to content of those smut magazines you girls read... then lets talk about the shitty crummy photoshopping.  i saw something good on FB the other day about this very topic, let me find it...
> 
> here it is: Artist Redesigns 'Cliché And Sexist' Girls' Magazine Cover With Brilliant Results | HuffPost UK
> 
> 
> Katherine Young on Twitter



That's not actually what the discussion is about.


----------



## limr

smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall several people mentioning the role of advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Referring to the sophistication of the targeting and the message, as an example  from 5 years ago. How Target Knew a High School Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Parents Did | TIME.com The sophistication has only gotten more advanced.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, marketing techniques have got quite sophisticated indeed.


----------



## SquarePeg

It’s distraction time.  Spin to another topic when your argument gets poked full of holes.


----------



## terri

vintagesnaps said:


> What smut magazines? The most recent subscription I had was to The Hockey News. (Which reminds me I gotta renew that.)


Artist's Magazine here.


----------



## pixmedic

hehehe.....smut


----------



## limr

terri said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> What smut magazines? The most recent subscription I had was to The Hockey News. (Which reminds me I gotta renew that.)
> 
> 
> 
> Artist's Magazine here.
Click to expand...


New Yorker. And I steal Buzz's Economist when he's done with them so I don't have to pay for my own


----------



## snowbear

Jp (Jeep) has the occasional woman on the truck ad, but I think that's probably surgery more than Photoshop.


----------



## thereyougo!

smoke665 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> young women won’t be idealizing unattainable body images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Forget the surgery for now, but let me ask something, how many women including yourself, use makeup? Why do they do It? Isn't it an attempt to create the illusion of a more pleasing look? The point is I think women have been striving for the ideal unattainable body image far longer then PS has been around. Frankly I see this as nothing more than a useless "feel good" law. Women will still spend billions on cosmetics, clothes, and surgeries, to achieve the perceived ideal look.
Click to expand...


Those women control their own image in their everyday life.  They apply their make-up or when having it applied have control over how it is done. If they decide to have surgery it is of their own volition, not through the use of a graphic tablet in the hands of someone else.


----------



## ClickAddict

Everyone is talking about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of having "This is not real" (or whatever) typed on the add, but I think the biggest impact has been overlooked.

As an advertiser, I would NOT want that on the ad.  Not because I would be trying to trick the audience, but because I dont want a "competing" thought in the ad.  If I am trying to get across the message "My product will make you rich/healthy/happy... whatever" I want you thinking specifically that idea after viewing the ad.  Not "Hey that was a photoshopped image"  It would be like me trying to sell you a vacuum, talking about it's powerful features and somebody standing next to me talking about my shoes.  It's distracting.  Advertising companies spend millions to get the exact message they want and everything is worked out to smallest details in ad campaigns.  You think they want to throw disclaimers on top of all that?

So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped.....  And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers.  (Which , based on studies would be a good thing.  )


----------



## JonA_CT

ClickAddict said:


> Everyone is talking about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of having "This is not real" (or whatever) typed on the add, but I think the biggest impact has been overlooked.
> 
> As an advertiser, I would NOT want that on the ad.  Not because I would be trying to trick the audience, but because I dont want a "competing" thought in the ad.  If I am trying to get across the message "My product will make you rich/healthy/happy... whatever" I want you thinking specifically that idea after viewing the ad.  Not "Hey that was a photoshopped image"  It would be like me trying to sell you a vacuum, talking about it's powerful features and somebody standing next to me talking about my shoes.  It's distracting.  Advertising companies spend millions to get the exact message they want and everything is worked out to smallest details in ad campaigns.  You think they want to throw disclaimers on top of all that?
> 
> So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped.....  And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers.  (Which , based on studies would be a good thing.  )


----------



## smoke665

ClickAddict said:


> So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers.



Interesting idea, that apparently has already started https://petapixel.com/2017/09/26/getty-images-bans-photos-containing-photoshopped-weight/


----------



## Braineack

ClickAddict said:


> So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing.  )



Even vacuums need photoshop.


----------



## limr

Braineack said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I would think, many advertisers would combat this law by ensuring the images were not photoshopped..... And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing.  )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even vacuums need photoshop.
Click to expand...


Once again, that's off topic. The French law is specifically about editing photos with the explicit intent of altering the shape of a model's body to make it appear thicker or thinner.

This has nothing to do with general editing for skin smoothing or tone or stray hairs, or shinier chrome on vacuum cleaners, or the content of magazine covers. Suggesting it does unnecessarily muddies the conversation.


----------



## Tomasko

ClickAddict said:


> And that would lead to more realistic images as opposed to fake images with disclaimers. (Which , based on studies would be a good thing.  )


Or they would simply search for genuine skinny models and prefer them => once again promoting the same exact message. Except this time they won't settle with photoshopping the photos, now they would effectively force models to appear the way they want. That, or the model doesn't get the job.
But yay, no photoshop!


----------



## smoke665

Tomasko said:


> Or they would simply search for genuine skinny models and prefer them => once again promoting the same exact message. Except this time they won't settle with photoshopping the photos, now they would effectively force models to appear the way they want.



They already covered that - from the same article _"In 2015, it passed a law aimed at banning the hiring of models deemed "excessively thin," reports The Fashion Law. Models who want to work in the country must get a doctor's note affirming a healthy body mass index. Italy, Spain and Israel have passed similar legislation."_


----------



## Tomasko

@smoke665 , you don't need to be "excessively thin". Thinner than average works usually quite well too. So instead of hiring average women (which seems what most proponents are hoping for), they will just hire more skinny models and be more picky about who they choose.
You see, people don't want to see "average" models. They want to see hot, healthy, attractive people. Advertisers will deliver, simple as that.


----------



## smoke665

@Tomasko the problem is it will be a doctor who decides what the "healthy" body will be. If their doctors are like those in the states, that could be a wide variance.


----------



## vintagesnaps

Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.


----------



## Braineack

vintagesnaps said:


> Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.



that whole model thing is why I stopped watch it.

the producers also made that plus-sized girl win last season even though she was awful.

too contrived for me.


----------



## waday

Few items that I found interesting (and quite sad) from the article:

Nearly 1% of France's population has an eating disorder (assuming 600k people and a current population of ~66.9 million people)
Nearly *10% of Americans *have suffered from an eating disorder at some point in their lives (assuming 30 million people and a current population of ~323 million people)
"Seventy percent of girls ages 10 to 18 report that they define perfect body image based on what they see in magazines," Katherine Record, deputy director with the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, told NPR in 2015


----------



## pixmedic

smoke665 said:


> Tomasko said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or they would simply search for genuine skinny models and prefer them => once again promoting the same exact message. Except this time they won't settle with photoshopping the photos, now they would effectively force models to appear the way they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already covered that - from the same article _"In 2015, it passed a law aimed at banning the hiring of models deemed "excessively thin," reports The Fashion Law. Models who want to work in the country must get a doctor's note affirming a healthy body mass index. Italy, Spain and Israel have passed similar legislation."_
Click to expand...


if its anything like doctors here in the US, people will just check doctors until they find one willing to give them what they want.
if you can pay in cash and they dont have to bother with insurance, many doctors here will pretty much give you a very wide berth on what they will prescribe.


----------



## waday

limr said:


> Adults who know better are *not* the target audience for these advertisements.


I really wish I could find the article I read several years ago that went into detail with how brands specifically attempt to hook children so that when they grow up, they have brand loyalty. It was from the perspective of clothing designers, but it really could be relative to any company.

Advertisers apparently spend $12 billion (let me rephrase that, $12,000,000,000) annually, and children view around 40,000 commercials every year (reference).

From same reference, interesting quote: "Several studies, for example, have found that parent–child conflicts occur commonly when parents deny their children's product purchase requests *that were precipitated by advertising.*"

(If you've already quoted this, sorry!)


----------



## smoke665

vintagesnaps said:


> Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.



Maybe, but something I read the other day, makes me wonder if it's the model's that are changing.  If you look at the "ideal" female figure over the last 100 years, except for the Twiggy years, models have for the most part looked healthy. However if you look at the CDC, BMI for women in this country, it has increased from 24.9 in 1960 to 26.5 present day. (Rehabs.com) data claims that in 1975 there was only about an 8% difference in total body weight between the average female and the average model, but today that spread has increased to 23% difference. So yes while there's a substantial difference in the weights of the models and the average woman, there's also been a substantial difference in the weight of the average woman. A BMI of 26.5 puts the average woman at slightly overweight. So I have to wonder who's actually changing the most?


----------



## limr

smoke665 said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thursday night turn on Lifetime and take a look at Project Runway. Things are changing, this type thing might be a step along the way and maybe there will more and better changes down the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, but something I read the other day, makes me wonder if it's the model's that are changing.  If you look at the "ideal" female figure over the last 100 years, except for the Twiggy years, models have for the most part looked healthy. (Rehabs.com) data claims that in 1975 there was only about an 8% difference in total body weight between the average female and the average model, but today that spread has increased to 23% difference. So yes while there's a substantial difference in the weights of the models and the average woman, there's also been a substantial difference in the weight of the average woman. A BMI of 26.5 puts the average woman at slightly overweight. So I have to wonder who's actually changing the most?
Click to expand...


_"However if you look at the CDC, BMI for women in this country, it has increased from 24.9 in 1960 to 26.5 present day."_

That's a 6-7% difference between the average size. The same website reports that 

_"1975 there was only about an 8% difference in total body weight between the average female and the average model, but today that spread has increased to 23% difference."_

That's a 15% difference.

The discrepancy is increasing faster that average size. That means the models are changing. 

"Addiction and eating disorder recovery site Rehabs.com worked with digital marketing agency Fractl on a project looking at the origins of Body Mass Index (BMI) measurements, and how the bodies of ideal women have compared to national averages over time. And their findings show that models and movie stars are getting smaller than the average American woman at unprecedented rates."
It's Amazing How Much The 'Perfect Body' Has Changed In 100 Years | HuffPost


----------



## vintagesnaps

Why I mentioned Project Runway (for the second time I realized) was because this season they're using models of various sizes, which seems to be one effort to head in a positive direction.


(Braineack, you stopped watching because of the models? what about them? The producers made the plus size girl win?? You're a couple of seasons behind but I had to look it up to remember. That young woman and all the contestants were judged on the designs sent down the runway for the finale by, you know, the judges seated there... who apparently often have a lengthy discussion not seen on the show, and don't always pick what I would, but then I don't have a background in fashion to be an expert.)


----------



## Dave442

It will be interesting to see how the French publications handle this over the next few months. There is an interesting article at Strategies.fr that mentions a need for Slow Photography - for good photographers with the equipment and time to set up to produce aesthetic images.  The new law might create more demand for good photographers, but it will probably create a bigger demand for plastic surgeons. 

I would think the publishing house lawyers want the the disclaimer placed on every single image.


----------



## Jamesaz

France is a much more homogenous society where people actually trust their government. This makes it much easier to make social change.  My first time there I asked a waiter for a non smoking table and he removed the ash tray. There was a problem with drink driving. Now, 20-30 years later smoking and DUI much reduced, due largely to education programs. Also, people don't get think that every regulation is somehow a violation of some sacred right to do as they please. Yes, generalizations.


----------



## The Barbarian

It's a worthy goal.   But I'm thinking that it's going to just add another bureaucratic mess to things.    Would they then call lighting a model to make her look thinner, "retouching?"

The problem is just that summed up in the story; instead of taking ideals from role models, girls are looking to media, toys, and other corporate sources.

Barbie dolls are a perfect example.    The best comment on that came from a feminist in LA:
"Apparently toy designers don't date very much."



> I would think the publishing house lawyers want the the disclaimer placed on every single image.



Which would completely cancel any benefit the law might have.   Such a disclaimer, if universally used, would be like "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.   When's the last time you thought about God when you looked at money?


----------

