Warning Label For Airbrushed Photos?
I read an interesting article last night in Time. Apparently some “French legislators want to take consumer protection to an unprecedented level, requiring that advertisements, product labels and even campaign posters carry a warning when they feature a photograph that’s been digitally enhanced.” The article stated…
The drive against airbrushed photos is being headed by conservative parliamentarian Valérie Boyer, who says the widespread use of digital technology to alter images is feeding the public a steady visual diet of falsified people, places and products. This artificial reality leads people to expect perfection from themselves and the world in an impossible way, she says. “When writers take a news item or real event and considerably embellish it, they are required to alert readers by calling the work fiction, a novel or a story based on dramatized facts. Why should it be any different for photograph… It’s creating parallel worlds: one in which everything in ads and photos is gorgeous, slim, chic and what we aspire to, and our daily reality of imperfection, normality and frustration that we can’t be like those other people who — literally — don’t exist.”
I’ve often thought digitally enhanced pictures can cause unrealistic expectations especially for those of us who are bombarded by them daily. It’s funny to me that our culture feels the need to enhance everything so that it looks almost perfect in order to sell a product, a person or an idea. Just one more example of how we worship idealized beauty…even if it is fake.
So what do you think? Are the warning labels a good idea or another example of government going too far?
Have you seen the Dove ‘Evolution’ clio on youtube as part of their ‘campaign for real beauty’. It’s at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U and is very enlightening.
.-= Carolyn´s last blog ..7 Quick takes – volume 7. =-.
Like Carolyn commented above, Dove has been working on these issues for quite some time. I also love the “More Beautiful You” video/song by Jonny Diaz. We wonder why we have such a distorted view of self-worth…
I’m not sure how I feel about what France (assuming it’s France, we have “French” up here in Canada too) is trying to do, but I like the idea of companies being encouraged to have more transparent advertising campaigns.
Well I guess I’m a victim of “air brushing” on a small degree for a headshot I’ll be using on a book cover. I recall the photographer saying he’d slightly whiten up the eyes and the teeth and soften a few lines here and there. WARNING: If you meet this author in person, he may look a little older–but his heart is still searching after God!
I think the warning labels are good but will probably work like the ones on cigarettes i.e. not be read or heeded. it all sort enhances the plastic people look. Now…time to go and have them put some hair on me and take out some laugh lines.
.-= bill (cycleguy)´s last blog ..Acting Civil =-.
sounds good to me, like when oprah shows what she looks like without make-up…now that is eye-opening
.-= april´s last blog ..Selling of Things =-.
Love it. As it is, kids are already trying to live up to the expectations that surround them on a daily basis; I would love to cut down on the falsely generated standards that they may be tempted to measure themselves against.
.-= thegypsymama´s last blog ..The Sunday night blues =-.
The ubiquity of digital editing should be exposed, but I don’t know about the disclaimer. A great makeup artist can do a LOT to a face without the editing. Shoot, we women work hard to disguise our bad traits and enhance our good ones with makeup. I call the ones who don’t leave the house without it “hair and makeup girls.” Should all hair and makeup girls wear disclaimers?
.-= Anita´s last blog ..Praying for Your Pastor: Fidelity =-.
A label can be posted but I’m not so sure it will have a big effect on the way people think… I mean we already know now that most photos are airbrushed without anyone telling us yet we can still look at a beautiful photo and think, ‘Well that’s not real but wow, we’re the same age…why doesn’t my skin look like that?”
That being said, I’m always a fan of transparency.
.-= joyce´s last blog ..I Don’t Have to Guess =-.
As a mom of two young girls, I consider it part of my responsiblity to educate them that not everything they see is real. For instance, they already will say (about a TV commerical)…”they’re just trying to sell us that” etc. I have pointed out girls in magazines and mentioned that they use computers to make them look thinner, etc.
I’ve also used photos of models in a good way. My oldest developed a mole aka beauty mark on her cheek…I showed her pictures of Cindy Crawford and her famous mole. it made her feel better about her own (small insignificant) feature.
I think ANYTIME we as a society have to abdicate personal responsiblity for government oversight that its a sad, sad day but unfortunately it seems like it happens more and more often. ….climbing off my soapbox now
Are any photos NOT digitally enhanced? My kids school pictures were retouched by the photographer before they sent them to us to order.
It seems like a hard thing to enforce. If anything, perhaps there should just be a recognition of some sort for untouched photos.
It’s all just a bandaid, though, for much deeper issues…
.-= Kat´s last blog ..My Menu and Shopping List 10/04/09 =-.
I think she might be onto something.
Now since you have a book coming out in the spring and many such books do have a photo of the author on them, you might want to think about your photo too.
Just sayin….
.-= Harold´s last blog ..Isaias Gabriel – Making The Difference in the DR =-.
I think we have come to expect that things are not as good as they are advertised….
even God.
.-= Tony York´s last blog ..Run, Onesimus, Run! =-.
@Anita, good point. Maybe we all do a little too much “airbrushing”.
Let me add this. I know we as adults are smart enough to put two and two together. We know these photos are touched up but what about our kids who are so easily impressed?
I don’t think the Government needs to interfere. Awareness needs to be brought to the issue, but its not the Governments place to dictate their opinions on individuals.
.-= Nick´s last blog ..Reproducing as a Small Group =-.
By the way… this starts at an early age before the kids care about airbrushed models, luxury items, or fashion.
Remember back to you childhood:
X-Ray Vision Glasses
Sea Monkeys
The great ‘Prize’ inside the crackjacks
The toy advertised on the front of the cereal box that you come to find out needs 2 proof of purchases and an order form.
The cool shoes, glove, or bat that would make you a better ball player.
Is there a chance that we want to be lied to? That we are conditioned to it?
.-= Tony York´s last blog ..Run, Onesimus, Run! =-.
Wouldn’t we need to have a warning sign for us as well? We often “airbrush” ourselves at church, with friends, etc….
you know putting your church face on make it seem that everything is perfect.
.-= Kyle Reed´s last blog ..Thoughts About Something Episode 2 =-.
I’m not sure if I see a big point in disclaimers on photos. It’d be a bit like all the warning labels we have to endure nowadays, wouldn’t it? “Warning: This plastic bag not intended for consumption. Warning: Do not poke self in eyes with this ballpoint pen. Warning: Do not believe this woman is a 40-year-old with absolutely no crows’ feet.” Most people are in some way trying to look like they are younger, slimmer, bustier, or whatever, and we do it through makeup, dressing to conceal “figure flaws,” and in so many other ways. Things are rarely as advertised!
.-= Jan C.´s last blog ..Funerals =-.
Not sure it would really help. Like Bill said, it’d probably be like the warning labels on cigarettes. Real or not, those images are still being raised as the standard of beauty and as long as they are, people will chase them.
.-= Lex´s last blog ..Buying freedom isn’t good enough =-.
@Tony York I didn’t realize how great my affection for Cracker Jacks was until I saw them on your list.
@Pete My daughter was baffled when she learned that kids on sitcoms have hairdressers fixing their hair between takes. NO. WAY. Yep. And the pastor’s wife once got a haircut between services.
.-= Anita´s last blog ..Praying for Your Pastor: Fidelity =-.
As a mom to two girls, I’m very aware of the pictures and ads that they are looking at. Both men and women are trying to live up to unreal expectations in most areas of their life. Although, I see her point about a warning label, (and I even compare myself to magazine ads too often and always come up short) I do NOT advocate for more government interference in our lives or products. I believe it’s up to parents to educate their children and themselves about these false portrayals of beauty and perfection.
What’s next? Outlaw make up to hide flaws, hair dye to cover gray, or body shapers to slim the figure?
.-= holly´s last blog ..And then there were three… =-.
No way to warning labels. I certainly think it’s sad they we feel the need to digitally alter every photograph, but I don’t see the need for that type of governmental interference. This isn’t a health issue.
Really, we just need to wise up and realize that a lot of what we see may not necessarily be reality. I’m willing to be that almost 100% of ads in magazines and magazine covers have been photoshopped.
.-= Robert´s last blog ..Of Broccoli and Half Marathons =-.
Agreeing with Carolyn, Dove is making huge strides to educate girls on what is real beauty. I would like to see more advertising agencies, corporations, etc take a stand and use “real” people. Perhaps warning labels should placed on ads that will be in media avenues that effect the most impressionable, our youth. Similar to not having cigarette and alcohol ads in teen mags or near schools.
As mom to two girls (17 and 21) and someone who is relatively proficient in Photoshop myself, my girls have seen firsthand the power of digital alteration. I’ve removed zits, touched up my own dark circles, whitened teeth and added a bit more blouse when less cleavage is needed in an otherwise great photo.
One thing I’ve done is periodically sit down with them and review many of the before/after Web sites (a simple Google search — photo retouching, before/after, Photoshop) will find them) to show them that the girls on the cover of that catalog or in the jeans ad don’t even look like that themselves.
It’s well worth an hour or so of your time to let them see for themselves that even these highly-paid models are not as perfect as they appear.
.-= beth g sanders´s last blog ..Daddy: Giving is Joy =-.
I love this idea. I’m a teenage girl and I can’t begin to tell you how many pictures etc are shown to me every day without even me going to look for them. When I leave the house, I’m going to end up seeing a billboard or ad somewhere with a picture of a girl that is not as skinny or pretty in real life. I’m not saying she’s fat or ugly. But, most likely, she is not THAT tiny or THAT beautiful all the time. That’s what the world wants girls my age (especially) to believe. I’m pretty tired of it, to tell you the truth. The pictures, the girls in movies and on tv, the commercials…it all adds up to showing us that we aren’t good enough. That we are somehow “wrong” because we don’t fit the mold that we’re being shown is “right.” Cookie cutter plastic people. It makes me think of Stained Glass Masquerade by Casting Crowns.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the warning should be plastered all over every picture. But at least saying at the bottom of each picture that it’s been re-touched would help so many girls my age. I know it’d help remind me that what I’m seeing isn’t totally real. Maybe we’d stop seeing the people in the pictures as beautiful and would start seeing them as people. Just a thought.
.-= OneGirl´s last blog ..Sum It Up Saturday…er, Sunday =-.
@Onegirl, praying for you. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to be a teenage girl in this culture.
You seem to have a great perspective though.
.-= Pete Wilson´s last blog ..Warning Label For Airbrushed Photos? =-.
havent read thru the comments, dunno if its been said, but…
i think we all know there is a fair amt of airbrushing goin on. what i think would be more effective is if they identified the ones that WEREN’T airbrushed. bring the attention to them in stead. and, save time and money from not having to list ALLLLLL the ones who are airbrushed.
It’s a good question. As a photographer, the clients I have had expect me to “touch up” the photos in order to make them look better. That’s understandable. I did a session this past weekend where the little girl had some kind of rash under her bottom lip. I think it had to do with her drooling somewhat because of her teething, but I couldn’t very well leave that in, so I cleaned it up (the drool as well).
As for whether or not this is an area where the government needs to be involved, the answer is a resounding no. Once again, this is an area of responsibility that falls on parents. I understand the concern, particularly with young girls who I feel are under far more peer pressure than boys to look a certain way. I’m not a huge fan of John Eldredge (the entire manly man, “You need to climb huge rocks” stuff gets boring after awhile) but I did read “You Have What It Takes – What Every Father Needs To Know” and it stresses the importance fathers letting their daughters know how beautiful they are.
Men, if we’re not going to tell our daughters how lovely they are, then they’ll look for that acceptance from somebody else and fall prey to those who adhere to the “airbrushed” mentality of what makes one beautiful.
.-= Jay´s last blog ..Update On My Mom =-.
As someone earlier stated… every photograph is altered to some extent by the photographer before it is released. Sometimes it’s just color adjustment, but usually it’s quite extensive. I am the dad of 4 girls (3 of which are teens) and understand the concerns. I think the labels would be ineffective. I’d prefer to see more advertising campaigns to educate young people, than legislation. Advertisers have always tweeked their product images. It’s just easier now. Let’s just make sure everyone understands the game.
.-= Michael Patterson´s last blog ..Daniela’s Story =-.
I was amazed a few years back to learn that models in the Lane Bryant catalogs were airbrushed….REALLY???
I have a friend who works for a photog studio in a high-end suburb of Dallas and she recently told me the girls want their tummies airbrushed out, all blemishes, any flabby arms and call complaining if their friends pic looks ‘more’ airbrushed than theirs!
In the future, I want to remember what my girls actually look like as teenagers…they are beautiful creations of God!
That is my 2c!
.-= bluegoose´s last blog ..On Being a Mom of Teenagers! =-.
Why sacrifice some freedom for a label that won’t do much?
Marshall Jones Jr.
.-= Marshall Jones Jr.´s last blog ..Passive Witnessing =-.
I don’t see warning labels as the government going too far. It is sad that companies have to build whole new departments that do nothing but write warning labels to protect the company’s assets. It’s also an indictment of how stupid, unthinking and unobservant we as a society have become.
Are you kidding me? There is a digital solution to making my gigantic “bootie” look normal-sized?!?! Can it enhance my pecs?
Every generation struggles with identity issues. If we let the government pave the way it will lead to utter disaster. It is time that we realize that no agency can legislate INTEGRITY…that is left up to the private citizenry and our various cultural institutions. Thus, if there is an issue that needs to be addressed, we don’t have to run to the local government agent; rather, we can answer the challenge ourselves and do something in our local communities to affect change.
.-= Nate VZ´s last blog ..And then there were three… =-.
I don’t think that the labels would really do much. That being said, I don’t think they could hurt. People have stated that they don’t think it’s the government’s role to be issuing opinions and interfering with our freedom. But, I don’t see how requiring a disclaimer when something is falsified is an opinion. If something’s a lie, and you can prove that it’s a lie, then your saying it’s a lie is not your opinion. Like I said, I don’t think it would really make much of a difference anyway, but I don’t see how it’s taking away our freedom, either.
.-= Vanity of Vanities´s last blog ..In the Details, Part One =-.
As many people have said, maybe putting a label on the pictures that aren’t retouched would be better. I think it would make more of a difference than saying it’s been retouched. After all, sometimes we never know if the person has been retouched or just the color.
Retouching color is one thing. I do that all the time with picnik. It’s incredibly fun to create wacky looky pictures or just a more colorful version of the sunset. Retouching people is another thing. We’re made in the image of God. Why are we retouching that image in pictures to make us look “right”? Aren’t we supposed to not conform? The pictures are sending out messages (at least to many people I know) saying “this is what’s normal. If you aren’t like me, you’re wrong and need to work as hard as you can until you look just like me.” Etc etc.
Many people have pointed out wearing make up and if it’s the same. I don’t think it is. Wearing make up to cover a blemish is not the same as making your whole face or body tanner in a picture. It’s different than taking a few inches off your waist by retouching to look skinnier on a billboard. I don’t want to come across as harsh, I’m very open to hearing other people’s opinions. But if it wasn’t the government trying to do this, and was instead a group of teenage girls, would your opinions be different?
.-= OneGirl´s last blog ..Sum It Up Saturday…er, Sunday =-.
Airbrushed photos should all carry the following warning label:
Warning – objects may be uglier than they appear.
That should cover it…
.-= katdish´s last blog ..Layers (by Heather of the EO) =-.
@katdish …Or larger.
.-= Jen´s last blog ..Death in the Family =-.
Honestly, I think it is quite hilarious that we as a society airbrush photos and then in order to stop the fallout caused by that we propose warning labels. Why not just stop airbrushing them? It is like treating the symptom, but not the cause. Ridiculous.
.-= Chrystie´s last blog ..Love and Obedience =-.
@Katdish, I’ll let you run with that campaign.
There are certain times when the warning is not required:
http://digg.com/d316UQa
.-= Angel Castaneda´s last blog ..JC is a little bit more proficient with computers… =-.
On one hand I want to scream YES, put labels on them so we will stop comparing ourselves to the airbrushed vision of beauty!
However, the heart of Jesus cries for us to see ourselves thru HIS eyes. That we are lovely, beautiful, image bearers of Christ. He calls me lovely, He calls me His child, He created me just as I am.
I’m not even close to being there, but I want to be.
Finding our significance in Christ is the best label to have – “created by Christ” is the label we should all wear.
.-= Laretha´s last blog ..God & Government =-.