Home » Michael Personal Posts

Day 54 – Doctors: Put warnings on airbrushed photos

Submitted by on February 23, 2010 – 10:57 am6 Comments

I was on my way home from a meeting with a client last night and came across a quite ridiculous article in the Evening Standard.

The headline reads Doctors: Put warnings on airbrushed photos and ban super-skinny models

Now, I don’t dispute that images of extreme perfection could prove to be a contributing factor and perhaps a trigger to eating disorders. I must stress the fact that it might be A FACTOR not the only one.

Nor do I agree with super skinny model….they’re not really my ‘bag’.

What baffles me, especially in the same week that Photoshop celebrates two decades of ‘airbrushing’, we have a expert pointing  out ridiculously naive comments like “It is shocking how much pictures are altered”. Is it really??? Everything that appears in print has been in some way altered and why shouldn’t it be? If a client asked me for an image straight out of the camera I’d politely smile and walk away.

The only reason that a newspaper image doesn’t necessarily receive that same amount of retouching as a billboard ad or a magazine cover is …………..money. Retouching (and I’m not going to call it ‘airbrushing’ as I’ve never even seen what an airbrush looks like) is extremely expensive.

Models shouldn’t be viewed as role models purely because they are there to sell a product not a personality. A Retouchers job is to help sell the product and part of selling is making something look unrealistically good.

Yes, you are selling a lifestyle and that is essentially what adversing is, but what sort of message are you sending out by announcing that everything is a lie. That everything you want is a lie.

Clothes makes people feel good, buying stuff we don’t really need makes us feel good.

Why must we constantly have these negative symbols which only act to reinforce our guilt and disillusion of the world.

Furthermore how retouched must something be to warrant a warning? Clearing the skin? Reshaping a face? Taking a waist in a couple of inches?

Where does it stop??

Would I then have to put this warning on a wedding pictures that I might use in a national ad (or this blog).

And what exactly does a warning really achieve?

If this doesn’t worry you in any way it just goes to show how deep we are into the mire of a nanny state we really are.

  • http://www.tpsphoto.co.uk Tim Hoy

    I have an airbrush or two I could show you Michael, but I would not know how to use them. That’s Tom’s job of course. David Cameron was recently castigated for having his own image airbrushed but I can’t understand the hypocrisy. Everyone I know thinks that adverts and politicians are based on big fibs, so why should they be surprised when any politician gets a bit of Photoshop spit and polish applied. If the MP Douglas Hogg had been quick enough to spin it, he could have cloned out instead of cleaned out his moat for much less than £2,200 of our taxes.

  • http://www.memorygate.co.uk/ Michael Shilling

    Politicians are whole different story! They should come with a hypocrisy warning.

  • http://www.randjphotography.co.uk Roy Mathieson

    Michael
    Must agree with what you say and how ridiculous thei interfering part of our society has become. Where are they going to stop? When are they going to stop? I’m a smoker and there have been warnings on packets for years. Has it stopped me? NO. Grrrrr!! it all just makes me angry. There are too many influences out in society which should carry health warnings apart from airbrushing models. I better get off my soapbox before I get carried away. A new thread on the forum asking what or who should carry a warning might be fun.

  • http://www.foto-eikenburg.com Peter M. Riemslag Baas

    Interesting……….. Next discussion might be……….
    “Be aware: This pose is NOT natural”

    Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

  • Pingback: The Memory Gate Monthly blog digest for February « The Gatekeepers

  • http://www.twitter.com/RachelNieman8r Rachel

    “but what sort of message are you sending out by announcing that everything is a lie. That everything you want is a lie.”

    The problem is people want and are motivated by the wrong things, materialistic things. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have labels on photos that have been airbrushed. Consumers have a right to know that using the product won’t actually make you look how advertisers say it will. Intelligent people already know without being told, but there will always be a handful of unrealistic hopefuls that will end up wasting their time and money and end up disappointed and unsatisfied with the product. It’s unfortunate how little we can do about this idea of advertising lies, but perhaps a warning label (as ridiculous as it may seem) could be one step of action that could prove somewhat effective.

  • http://www.memorygate.co.uk/ Michael Shilling

    Some people call it advertising lies, advertisers call it semiotics.

    Why should we have everything explained to us? What wrong with a little ignorance?

    “Where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” [Thomas Gray]