Did you see this? Sex, Lies and Photoshop . . .

03/13/2009 03:09:14 PM · #1

What's happening in France and elsewhere re altered magazine photos and self-image. Fascinating video clip (preceded by a commercial, sorry).

See: //video.nytimes.com/video/2009/03/09/opinion/1194838469575/sex-lies-and-photoshop.html

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

03/13/2009 03:19:40 PM · #2

Whining about images being retouched in magazines is silly.

trnqlty

Nikon D90

03/13/2009 03:32:46 PM · #3

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Whining about images being retouched in magazines is silly.

Yeah agreed.

CorySmith

03/13/2009 04:34:57 PM · #4

Looks like a documentary made by an angry college student. Tough it out like the rest of the world lady

citymars

Nikon D700

03/13/2009 05:45:30 PM · #5

Hmmm, I'll have to look at it again. I got the impression she was reporting on a possible change in law, not pushing a whiny agenda.

03/13/2009 05:47:25 PM · #6

Originally posted by citymars:

Hmmm, I'll have to look at it again. I got the impression she was reporting on a possible change in law, not pushing a whiny agenda.

It is a possible change in a law, but the premise is still whiny.

citymars

Nikon D700

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

03/13/2009 06:28:25 PM · #7

There are some thoughtful comments at The Online Photographer.

PhotoDave

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/13/2009 07:02:42 PM · #8

if something like this goes through there will be FAR fewer photos being used and more CG graphics that are obviously not "real" or perceived that way. If the publishers are forced to disclose this in the magazines then the extra printing costs alone would prob double the end user costs of buying the magazines.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/13/2009 07:31:56 PM · #9

I think they should target fast food the same way. I have NEVER seen a burger at McDonalds that looked anything like the ones in the ads on TV.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

03/13/2009 07:32:04 PM · #10

There is a great deal of silliness in pointing out that images are retouched, especially in an environment like dpc, where we do it all the time. The reason that it is not silly lies in the fact as stated in the little video thing, that young people judge themselves against the images that they see. 'Young people' in this context does not only refer to those who drink weak beer and drive fast cars and generally deserve what's coming to them. A few years younger than that and you're into the group of 'young people' who are the most prime and ripe targets for the advertising industry. People from teens right down to kiddies have a great deal of buying power in terms of money and serious buying weakness in terms of critical perception of advertising. They buy it, literally. So they're silly, but they haven't grown out of their silliness yet, which they just might do. How silly is it to help them avoid being silly when they don't know better?

Google Glass Google Glass

03/13/2009 07:35:29 PM · #11

Originally posted by raish:

How silly is it to help them avoid being silly when they don't know better?

I would find it easy enough to simply explain the situation to the child. If they are old enough to spend money, then they are old enough to understand the situation without having to have legislation passed to 'fix' the problem. The warnings that are printed on the side of cigarette packs haven't been shown as effective in preventing people from starting to smoke. A similar notice on a photograph would not likely have a stronger impact...

ambaker

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/13/2009 07:45:58 PM · #12

I believe it comes under the heading of some parents won't parent, so the rest of the world must be reduced to the lowest common denominator to prevent someone from getting the "wrong" idea.

A generation ago, a kid would be told that they were stupid for aspiring to be something that wasn't realistic. Now it might hurt their self esteem, so the world must be restructured to insure that no child gets a dumb idea. (Which is in and of itself, a dumb idea.)

Today there is a warning label on each and every bicycle sold (in the USA), telling the owner that it is unsafe to ride an unlighted bicycle at night. A generation ago, your parent told you once not to do it as you were learning to ride. If you tried it, you got your butt whipped and that made the lesson more or less permanent.

Prash

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/13/2009 08:22:03 PM · #13

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I think they should target fast food the same way. I have NEVER seen a burger at McDonalds that looked anything like the ones in the ads on TV.

Ahahahah!

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

03/13/2009 08:22:56 PM · #14

Originally posted by ambaker:

I was going to stay out of this but, you're dead on.

Prash

Nikon D90

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

03/13/2009 08:24:28 PM · #15

Guys, catchup!

The lines between reality and dreams, between RAW and PP-JPEGS, between originals and touched-ups, between basic and advanced editing,

are blurring!

Dont be feeling left out in a few years. lol!

ETA: Spell check.

Message edited by author 2009-03-13 20:27:19.

PhotoDave

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

03/13/2009 09:18:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by ambaker:

you SO hit the nail on the head :)

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/13/2009 10:18:04 PM · #17

Oh man, I love this topic of "back in the day!" Seriously, this approach is the only way I, as a twenty something, feel at all at home with older generations and their reminiscing. Overall, kids today have been robbed of the ability to make dumb decisions, which is what I pretty much thought being a child was all about. This sounds good on paper, but really it seems to just breed ineptitude. A great way to see this in action (around where I live, anyway) is to compare and contrast playgrounds from today with those of the past. Everything is far more idiot proof- and although it was apparent to me when I was wee that jumping off a giant junglegym would be hazardous, it has now been decided that children and society at large lack that ability today. It's also funny to me that a child getting injured is suddenly the worst thing in the world. I always thought kids had fun and occasionally got hurt when they had an accident. Guess I was wrong :-/

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

03/13/2009 10:57:47 PM · #18

silly video.

Our ideas of beauty are the same. The magazines are simply pandering to the best possible.

No surprises there. To try to legislate some sort of change there is wishful thinking and honestly kind of stupid.

i also think of the fact that many kids are doing a lot more to maintain their health now than kids of 5 or 10 years ago because they are more conscious of these things. That's not bad too is it?

there will always be those who take things to excess, but they don't set the average, just the limits.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/14/2009 03:29:43 AM · #19

My bad. As long as the old foks are in denial then all bets are off, obviously.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

03/14/2009 12:30:02 PM · #20

Originally posted by raish:

My bad. As long as the old foks are in denial then all bets are off, obviously.

There isn't any denial. The problem of unrealistic body image among youth (and adults) is very real, but this is NOT the solution.

The solution begins at home, at a younger age, and with a complete and utter change of mindset regarding the media and entertainment that we expose ourselves to, or treat as acceptable in our lives.

ambaker

Google Glass Google Glass

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

03/14/2009 12:44:51 PM · #21

Originally posted by raish:

My bad. As long as the old foks are in denial then all bets are off, obviously.

Raish,

There is a problem. Anorexia is real. In my mind, and no I do not claim infallibility, it is that the problem is best solved by parents actually talking with, and teaching their children that those images and body shapes are not realistic, not healthy in many cases, and not the cultural ideal; as opposed to parking their children in front of the TV, and letting them cruise the internet with no supervision, and thinking that once the children are old enough to read and heed printed warnings, that everything will turn out alright. And if it doesn't then they will sue McDonald for making their children fat. After all, it was too much work to teach them about proper nutrition.

Both ways may work, I happen to believe mine is better. Especially considering that shows like Myth Busters continually warn children, "Not to try this at home... Ever!", yet they still do.

The other half of the problem is that, we as a society, are hypocrites. If a person is famous, or even better a star athlete, we allow them to do pretty much what they want, as long as they keep winning. As long as Michael Phelps keeps brining home gold medals, we will feel that he was being singled out for smoking dope, or driving drunk. Barry Bonds can be a jerk and use steroids, and we wink at it until he is at the end of his career. What kind of message does this send to our youth? How many other baseball players did we ignore for being on the juice, as long as they were winning games?

The problem, my friend, is much deeper than a lack of verbiage next to a photo and I feel that the solution requires a bit more than a warning label. Warning labels are our cop-outs that allow us to feel better about our lack of real solutions applied to our problems.

Those impossibly thin photos are in the magazines because people want them there. No matter what label they put on the photo, as long as we idealize those photos, kids with believe that if they could only look like that... Want those photos gone?.... Quit buying the magazine to look at them. The publisher only gives us what we want.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 12:56:50.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

03/14/2009 01:57:25 PM · #22

OK, I think you started out all right there. Of course parents should do what's best for their kids. It's not guaranteed that parents actually know what's best for their kids. It's not like I do, but I, like just about anyone, will be likely to take offence at somebody else telling me what's best for my kids.

It may not be exactly what you meant, but you implied in a previous post that whipping your kid's butt was a good thing. That is very definitely against the law where I am. Now, that may seem like a pretty intrusive sort of law (and I'm sure you're a good parent and not a cruel one) but you know damn well that there are parents out there that should be brought into line.

We have natural defences against disease - newborn babies have natural defence against drowning and even some sort of defence against falling out of the trees they would have been born in hundreds of generations ago - but there is no defence against bad parents. Like things hatching out of eggs that assume that the first organism they see is their mother and therefore the being in whose image they are born etc etc... - I'll not go on about that because it makes for uncomfortable thinking, but there but for fortune go you or I.

So let's just assume that children of good parents who actively pursue a healthy, balanced upringing and make information available for the critical and intelligent reflection of their sons and daughters, are out of the danger zone. What about the other kids?

Into the valley of psychic media screams they go, advertising to the left of them, advertising to the right of them, with powerfully financed technology deliberately tempting them with a picture of reality that is knowingly and so effectively falsified that the majority of adults are not even aware that it is false, much less the extent to which it is manipulated. I just don't think it is reasonable to say that a suggestion that manipulative falsehoods should be exposed as manipulative falsehoods to these fodder of advertising's cannons, is 'silly'.

Dirt_Diver

Nikon D3s