French Deputies Want Labels On Photo-Altered Models 512
Psychophrenes writes "A number of French deputies are proposing to pass a law requiring all published photos that were modified by means of an image manipulation program to include a statement indicating that 'the photo was altered in order to modify the appearance of a person.' This indication is to be mandatory on all ads, packaging images, political posters and even art photos, and is considered a matter of public health, aimed at fighting anorexia." The related article is in French, but Google Translate does a pretty good job.
Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (Score:5, Informative)
Those kinds of modifications shouldn't and likely wouldn't be covered by the provision. There is already a pretty well-established metric by which photojournalists follow. It can be summed up in this statement, "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."
Cropping and white balance adjustments are considered ok. Adjusting lighting, posing, or other things are not considered ok, although most people consider it ok as long as the context is obvious (e.g., a portrait for someone's profile or similar). Adjusting the face, removing/adding hair is not ok.
Re:Awesome! (Score:2, Informative)
Right-on, France!
I don't know if such a law can even work, but just the fact that this kind of thing is even being considered is really cool.
My fellow male geeks don't truly get what girls go through and what a mind-job it does on them. But there IS one example which might resonate. . .
Remember when all those new Star Wars toys came out, and all the characters you once identified with were now PuMpEd up? I know it affected me in a negative way, and I thought I was fairly impervious to such things. I found it surprising and illuminating.
Advertising and media stereotypes fuck you in the head. Remember: Body hair was at one time not considered ugly on a woman. It wasn't until quite recently that this changed when a razor-blade company decided to start equating dirtiness with body-hair on women. Doubled the number of customers for its product. This was only a century or two ago.
Fuck advertising. Rock-on France! If it wasn't for Sarkozy and the creep of evil, France would be the true hero of the world.
-FL
Hey, Why should I care about women's problems? I have been harassed, ostracised, and just plainly humiliated by women most of my life. First because of my weight, after that because of my hobbies, after that because of my Msc in applied mathematics. I just don't give a damn about women's problems anymore. Let one female come forward and tell her sisters that I deserve some basic human respect, then I will join the fight. Until then, women reap the fruits of what they have sown. Regarding the question of female body hair. I have personally witnessed young women bragging to their female friends about dumping boyfriends, because the men in question had hair growing on their toes.
To sum it up. There is absolutely no sympathy for any female appearance anxieties coming from me, until one single female actually steps up and tells her sisters that I have the right to be respected as a basic human being.
Re:Porn and hamburgers (Score:5, Informative)
That reminds me of a scene in one of my favorite movies [imdb.com]. Michael Douglas takes a fast food joint hostage because the burger doesn't look like the picture ;)
"Turn around. Look at that picture. It's big, it's juicy, it's three inches thick. Now look at this sorry sad squashed thing. What's wrong here? Can anybody tell me? Anybody at all?"
Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (Score:2, Informative)
Well, maybe gay men. They do dominate the world of high fashion.
Re:Porn and hamburgers (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly, the problem isn't with the idea, but with the label: it should say which thing contains carcinogens so that you can avoid the problem.
Yes, it should explain that the AIR in the hotel and its parking garage contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
All parking garages have the Prop 65 warning, because they're all full of car exhaust. Almost all hotels have them, because they use carcinogenic pesticides.
As it turns out, the labels are accurate, and what you need to avoid is the ENTIRE BUILDING if you don't want to be exposed to carcinogens. OTOH, if you go outside, that's the smoking section...
Re:white balance and racial implications (Score:3, Informative)
I remember at least one instance in the last 20 years where an American politician used a picture of his opponent and the ad mad the opponent look much lighter or darker than he looks in person in normal room light. There was some backlash charging the campaign with race-baiting or something like that.
You may be thinking of the Time O.J. cover, although that of course wasn't a political campaign. Time darkened O.J.'s mug shot to make him look darker, unshaven, and generally more sinister.
Re:digitization vs. digital modification (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Food styling (Score:5, Informative)
Not just ordinarily inedible. Burgers in photographs aren't cooked all the way, instead being browned with a blowtorch. They have cardboard supports inside them, extra sesame seeds glued on with hot glue, glycerin and hairspray added for that extra juicy look, and the whole thing is held together with pins. Yum.
Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I am attracted to toned muscles, the suggestion of a curve between waist and hips, and "average" C-cup breasts (past a certain point, bigger is not better!) In fact, I believe the real standard of beauty is symmetry combined with really average features and proportions. This is why mixtures of different races are frequently very sexy, while inbred populations (which accentuate certain features) are not.
Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (Score:3, Informative)
except the women in men's magazines are usually well-proportioned in the t&a department [...] the whole scary skinny trend in high fashion is created by, and perpetuated by, and invested in, by women, not men.
I hope you're not implying that Playboy models don't diet and exercise religiously, augment themselves surgically, and still their pictures are photoshopped. Women see men respond more to anything resembling that sculpted T&A form, but to women that look is slutty. Playboy minus slutty == stick figure. Chubby is not an option. There are no plump female celebrities that are not routinely ridiculed in everything from comedy shows to tabloids, and virtually always by men.
Re:it's not men driving this phenomenon (Score:2, Informative)
The last paper I saw on it was that the Venus of Willendorf was most likely the result of a female trying to depict herself while pregnant. The artist gazed down at her own torso/belly and transferred the skewed proportions to the statue. They photographed both a model and the statue from this perspective to show the similarities. (I would hunt for the link, but it's probably NSFW given the use of nude model.)
Re:Aren't ALL photos modified these days? (Score:2, Informative)
Whether you want to admit it or not, you're talking about environmental changes to the subject - lighting, color cast, exposure, etc.., not physical changes. You're not grasping the difference between an illusion, such as painting a room white to make it appear larger, and physical manipulation, such as moving your walls five feet out to increase your square footage.
Everyone expects that a good photographer will capture their subjects in the best light and color, along with manipulating the subject matter to get the best possible facial expression, etc. These are the basic elements of portrait photography, and have been for a long time. It's still a far cry from going in and giving your subject a digital nose job, increasing their bust size, slimming their waist and thighs, and stretching their torso. No amount of bounce lighting is going to achieve those things.