What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
96 Comments
- inactive, on 09/28/2009, -5/+68I really wish they would stop making women look like sticks. Healthy women are much more appealing in so many aspects. The touch ups they do make all women look like barbie doll stick figures :(
- Smokeydabear, on 09/28/2009, -2/+44* Disclaimer: supermodel slightly not as hot as portrayed in ad.
- WRXFiles, on 09/28/2009, -1/+40So they would just put a disclaimer on ALL ads?
Seriously, how many ads do you think get produced in 2009 without the help of Photoshop or the like.... - UNL1M1T3D, on 09/28/2009, -15/+41This is stupid, what's next disclaimers on fast food ads so when you order that hamburger you're not shocked it looks nothing like the picture?
- jejones, on 09/28/2009, -1/+21Ridiculous. Choice of lens, focus, depth of field, lighting, and photographer's point of view all work to "distort" in some way, long before firing up Photoshop. Ditto for makeup, clothing, underwear, Spanx, etc.... so let's cut to the chase and require that all models in ads be nude, without makeup, and shot with a single official legal focal length, pose, lighting, etc.
- Barackalypse, on 09/28/2009, -4/+23Who are the people that run these Governments that think that the Government should have a role in deciding what "body-image" it is appropriate and inappropriate to convey? Why stop at just airbrushed pretty girls, why not require disclaimers if a fat person appears in an ad warning people that it is unhealthy to be obese like that?
- cport1, on 09/28/2009, -2/+19So now every single image in every single magazine, news paper, etc. is going to have an asterisk ... Sweet... I think it's common knowledge that photographers throw each of their images into bridge and photoshop after each photo shoot..
- UNL1M1T3D, on 09/28/2009, -1/+17I love a woman with curves.
- bashnu, on 09/28/2009, -3/+17The disclaimers should simply state - FAKE!
- gregwhitworth, on 09/28/2009, -1/+15That's what I was worried about. As a photographer I was like, wait I alter the levels on almost every image and this would force me to say that I have altered my photo, thus making it seem like I didn't capture the image. That would then lead the consumer to question what is real and what isn't. Interesting no?
- doctordbx, on 09/28/2009, -2/+15What's next?
Transformers 3*
*Note - visual effects and CGI have been used in this movie to enhance reality. Robots that can turn into cars don't exist (yet). - Obsidian743, on 09/28/2009, -1/+13What I don't understand is why they only care so much about women? There are ads out there that depict men in similar fashions that make the rest of us feel inadequate, too.
- badqat, on 09/28/2009, -6/+17I'm not so sure I care for this. I can fully understand why journalistic photographs cannot be retouched or altered, but in terms of marketing - it's way more than just people that are touched up and/or altered.
- doctordbx, on 09/28/2009, -0/+10Only if those burger stand burgers have ***** up parents and were raised by television.
- FredFredrickson, on 09/28/2009, -0/+9Or they just make us look stupid. How many ads on TV depict the man as the overweight, bumbling fool?
- mythicflux, on 09/28/2009, -0/+9That or the disclaimer could be:
"You can tell because of the pixels..." - inactive, on 09/28/2009, -5/+13The European nanny state strikes again, please save us from ourselves!
- Ahnteis, on 09/28/2009, -3/+10Silverblade
> should be made illegal.
> You're within your right
See the difference? Those quotes are both from you. - avianeddy, on 09/28/2009, -0/+7TOO LATE.
Those of us savvy with Photoshop can spot the blatant fakeness on some magazines... but unfortunately most people can't.
And when ethics and honesty in advertising went out the window LONG ago... we may have already skewed public perception beyond repair.
Worse: it's not just skinny bone-babes with inflated lips and boobs, you can see retouched babies on Parents magazine and even the "teenage" magazines have given their pubescent starlets a dose sexy and hyper-cuteness– it's sad. - inactive, on 09/28/2009, -2/+9If the product looks nothing like the photo, that's false advertising. Plain and simple.
Laws in advertising are more strict in the UK and it makes sense because those photoshoped images apparently affect the behavior of children to view them. - dshPls, on 09/28/2009, -3/+10Most of the time this logic is overblown. Sure 90 pound girls aren't hot, but neither are 200+ pound girls...
- sculptedguns, on 09/28/2009, -1/+7I have an idea, ***** disclaimers and we can let people use their brains to determine what is realistic and what is not based on what they see in their actual ***** lives.
- TommyBoy919, on 09/28/2009, -3/+9Less whining about altered images, more hitting the gym there sweetheart. That ass isn't working itself off.
/s - Barackalypse, on 09/28/2009, -7/+12Thankfully, the Foudning Fathers of my country foresaw people like you and inserted language in our Constitution to protect free expression that allows artists and photographers to make a person's body look however they want.
- JudgeMonkey, on 09/28/2009, -0/+5There's the issue. I'm a fat bastard and I know it. When some fatty McFattington says "I ain't fat, I'm just realistic." Ugh, it just disgusts me.
The line is valid enough even for non chubby-chasers "Healthy women are much more appealing in so many aspects." (understanding that that line is completely an opinion.) It's just important to not be delusional. That's where the issue arises. - BlackOp, on 09/28/2009, -0/+5They don't even use real food in many ads.
- gobbleplex, on 09/28/2009, -0/+4Please everyone, can't we think of the hamburgers?
- Inceptious, on 09/28/2009, -7/+11stupid
- Stingwolf, on 09/28/2009, -0/+4I have a strange suspicion that we're not talking about burgers anymore...
- FallenTurtles, on 09/28/2009, -1/+5While I personally agree with your terminology, if you want to advocate laws against this alteration, you need to prove to me that changing pimples or blemishes is not enough to change the "truth" of the photo. Perhaps, in many peoples opinions, eliminating bad acne (or even a single pimple) from a photo is just as bad as stripping away curves.
- krymson, on 09/28/2009, -0/+4If all digg posts had this pair of comments we could spare ourselves all a lot of typing.
- ohplease, on 09/28/2009, -3/+7"Waaaah I feel ugly because of photoshopped women in magazines that are exclusively printed and read by other women and gay men. "
I don't care if a magazine that men don't read makes some women feel ugly, I'm more worried about how stupid it's making them. - phatmonky, on 09/28/2009, -2/+6this is a move only supported by fat chicks and nanny state politicians.
Are we going to ban all models now? Spending all day working out and 10,000 dollar dresses creates an unrealistic expectation since in the real world I have to work 60 hours a week. - inactive, on 09/28/2009, -0/+4Sure, breakfast cereal uses white elmers glue to simulate milk as real milk causes the cereal to get soggy rather fast and they need the bowl of cereal to stay fresh all day long.
However, look at a McDonalds hamburer, the meat patty is huge, the bun cant cover the whole thing. But when you buy it, its the exact opposite. - conspiracyofone, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3Sure, that would make more sense than this legislation. I think it is fraud when advertisers mislead consumers as to the size/quality/quantity of the product they are selling using digital manipulation. Saying "that's just the way it is with advertising" ignores the problem. I don't necessarily believe the government should step in, but maybe there will come a time where photos of products such as burgers will carry a voluntary "Digitally Unaltered" label, so that consumers know that what they see is what they get!
- Xerous, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3You mean like that Digg/Bury thing?
- doctechnical, on 09/28/2009, -2/+5?SN ERROR
- inactive, on 09/29/2009, -0/+3http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/25/celebrities-before ...
Good examples - Leezus, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3You're just as ridiculous as these people are. Skinny is not unhealthy. I know more than a couple gorgeous women that are just as self-conscious about how thin they are as many women are about their weight. Although, admittedly, most of their self-consciousness comes from their nearly nonexistent chests.
- somnus, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3Hyper-sad.
;) - macslut, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3I don't understand how this could possibly work unless all photos had the same disclaimer. Unless a photo is shot spontaneously and then placed without any processing whatsoever, then it's reality has been intentionally altered...and even with a spontaneous shot and no processing, it's been unintentionally altered and perhaps intentionally selected.
Every shot a professional photographer takes is set up from the beginning to achieve a look. Lighting, angle of shot, depth of field, having the model wear a corset and tape/tie certain areas, the type of fabric, the color and pattern of the fabric, the types of shoes, the relative size and placement of objects and subjects in the background, etc... Of course there are also things like fake eye lashes, contact lenses and of course makeup itself.
Once the shot is taken, how does one not use Photoshop or other tool to further enhance the shot, and where do you draw the line on what would be considered altering the shot?
If I were a publisher, I'd just post the disclaimer on every photo and be done with it, in which case it accomplishes nothing. - TAGline, on 09/28/2009, -2/+5If everything gets an disclaimer, will anyone pay attention to it? Doesn't seem to do much for even extremely visible labeling like nutritional labels, surgeon general's warning on cigarettes, FBI warnings on films, etc. (Yes I know those are all for the States). And what will this do for untouched photos of models that have thousands of dollars of plastic surgery? Does the difference between altering the person and altering the image of the person really matter?
Besides, can anyone so naive as to take ads at face value even read the warnings in the first place? - wh3873, on 09/28/2009, -3/+6"She argued that altered images were undermining young women’s ability to control their own destinies. “These photos can lead people to believe in realities that, very often, do not exist,” she said."
Under this logic we should ban fictional stories, video games, most movies and Role-playing games.
Try this, perfection doesn't exist but the quest for perfection (even imagined perfection) can enrich our lives in many ways. If you can't handle that enjoy your cheeseburger. - PeppermintPig, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3Nothing better to do??? If you're looking for an example of fascism, this is one, btw.
- papashawn, on 09/28/2009, -0/+3the skewed perception of reality these magazines try to create irks me, but I don't think adding disclaimers to everything is the right way to go.
That is unless editors find it so ridiculous that they give up digitally retouching entirely. - GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 09/28/2009, -1/+3Complete and utter nonsense. Manipulating the look of a model is the job of everyone involved from the get go. The industry uses lighting, clothing, make-up, in-camera tricks, and more. Unless they have the model visit every potential viewer in person NO ONE will ever know what she really looks like.
How about disclaimers in other commercials that say "Not all wives despise their husbands, berate them and treat them like sh*t."
"Soda is not actually exciting" "Neither is Miracle Whip"
come on - jwolcott, on 09/28/2009, -0/+2actually, that's a good idea!
- Ryan32, on 09/28/2009, -0/+2Next up, government controlled self-esteem.
- lorem1000, on 09/28/2009, -2/+4Exactly. This isn't about journalism, it's freaking advertising. If someone's 15 yr old daughter can't tell the difference, maybe they should stop letting everyone else be accountable for her upbringing.
I retouch every photo I take for myself or for a client--we don't all set out to make them unbelievable or unobtainable. There's always at least a small amount aesthetic alterations adjusted to fit the context.
Who's job will it be to define the line between "overdone" and subtle necessary changes? - MisterBadIdea, on 09/28/2009, -3/+5Man, my Republican side doesn't come out much anymore, but Jesus ***** Christ. Now the government has to introduce regulations to protect females from body issues?? This is retarded. I'm about ready to pick up a picket sign and start screaming NO MORE SOCIALISM at this one.
Can we get some regulation against Nickelback CDs that warn you that the CD will make you look like a douchebag? Warning labels for cheap-as-***** cars that will point out that it makes you less attractive to women? I'm disgusted. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is