Slashdot Mirror
US Watchdog Bans Photoshop Use In Cosmetics Ads
MrSeb writes "In an interesting move that should finally bring the United States' fast-and-loose advertising rules and regulations into line with the UK and EU, the National Advertising Division (NAD) — the advertising industry's self-regulating watchdog — has moved to ban the misleading use of photoshopping and enhanced post-production in cosmetics adverts. The ban stems from a Procter & Gamble (P&G) CoverGirl ad that photoshopped a model's eyelashes to exaggerate the effects of a mascara. There was a footnote in the ad's spiel about the photo being manipulated, but according to the director of the NAD, that simply isn't enough: 'You can't use a photograph to demonstrate how a cosmetic will look after it is applied to a woman's face and then — in the mice type — have a disclosure that says "okay, not really."' The NAD ruled that the ad was unacceptable, and P&G has since discontinued it. The ruling goes one step further, though, and points out that 'professional styling, make-up, photography and the product's inherent covering and smoothing nature' should be enough, without adding Photoshop to the mix. The cosmetics industry is obviously a good starting point — but what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?"
Interesting that the NADs would be protecting me from beautiful women. Hm.
I'm creating an analog version of Photoshop for beauty enhancement. I'm kicking around 3 names for it right now: 1) Flugrup, 2) Snibb, and 3) Makeup.
Table-ized A.I.
Since when did cosmetics, and most especially the advertisements thereof, have anything to do with reality? They are like real life photoshop.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
They're protecting millions of impressionable young girls who might be exposed to these ads.
Yeah I went there.
This seems like a rather misogynistic perspective. Not all women are looking to take advantage of men.
The ExtremeTech article mentions an Adobe product by name eight times but doesn't mention its competitors once. I haven't had a chance to read the regulation myself, but someone reading the ExtremeTech article might come away with the impression that people who use non-Adobe software might get off easier, even if the capabilities of non-Adobe software are GIMPed by comparison.
But who will I sell my "Circus Clown Photoshop Plugin Set" to now?! Who else could possibly need my patented "Whorify" brush?
My work here is dung.
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Regardless of the technology used, the entire photographic process is totally artificial and at several removes from reality in the first place.
I'd be fine with this. The burger you get at the counter doesn't look anything like the ones in the ads or on the poster in the store, clearly misleading. Whether a *law* needs to be added into the mix is a whole other matter, and one I'd rather not see enacted.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Yea, I really wish someone in the government would make the fast food industry stop the clearly deceptive advertising. The pictured sandwiches are nothing like what you are actually buying. It is one thing to say "we took extra care to make it look good, positioned all of the parts perfectly, and photographed it under good lighting, it is quite another to photograph larger portions than the customer will ever get.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Ban clothes too! All they're doing is adding color to otherwise rather monotone skin color.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
What? You didn't notice they've added glycerin as a condiment next to the ketchup?
I actually agree with this. I don't use clothes at home either (or when browsing Slashdot), and if the weather permits, why should I need to use them outside either? Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
A gal's perspective here. This is something that I learned as a teenager: Makeup is actually bad for your skin. If you care for your skin properly as a teenager and a young adult, and don't slather twenty layers of makeup on it daily, then your skin actually stays pretty nice looking through your thirties and forties. However, if you wear makeup regularly as a youngster, you'll need to wear makeup for the rest of your life. (Not smoking also helps a lot as well.)
I do wear light makeup on special occasions, but during the week at work I just don't bother. I use a clear combo gel/powder with sunscreen called MagicX instead of foundation on "bad skin days." That's all I need, even though the cosmetic industry thinks I need to have twenty different products on my skin daily. I splurge on good lotions and night treatments, but because I do that, I don't need makeup - or photoshop - to have a nice looking face.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Aside from the brand name, a photo is often manipulated before it leaves the photo with the likes of color correction, sharpening, smoothing, etc.
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Well, on the same line: everybody in this world would need to wear a uniform - after all, different clothing are faking the stuff underneath. Should I continue?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I assume when the say "Photoshop" they really mean any kind of image editor, otherwise we can ignore the whole thing.
Even the idea of banning "post processing" has no clear meaning. In the digital world there is no such thing as an unmodified image. There is RAW data, but this is not a viewable image until it's been post processed. Even a JPG directly from the camera has already been processed to include color shifts, sharpening changes, and relative lighting. Professional photographers often take RAW output (data not images) from the camera and post process that on their computers to produce an image. This begs the question of the line, how much post processing is acceptable and when is it too much?
This wasn't the federal goverment. "National Advertising Division (NAD) — the advertising industry's self-regulating watchdog" It is a trade group that acts as a regulator.
I'd rather marketers be over-restricted than under-restricted. Talk about lying: just the other day I got an ad in the form of a fake rebate check. It looks just like a real check, of course, and it says "REBATE CHECK" in big letters and "This is not a check" in very small letters. WTF? Can I sell a pill that says "CURES CANCER!" in big letters and then "Does not cure cancer" in small letters just below it?
(I'm not kidding. I can post a pic later if anyone wants to see proof.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The NAD is a private organization. The US government has nothing to do with this.
Unless one wishes to cling to the trivially false illusion that humans are rational actors, who weigh all data inputs objectively, it seems fairly obvious that a gigantic picture asserting that Product X will make your face look like you've been born with perfect genes and then worked over by a talented retouch guy is a lie, even if accompanied by a 2pt flyspeck disclaimer that 'results not typical, you ugly hag, buy our product anyway or die scorned and alone'.
Of course, on that basis, it's hard to imagine much of the advertising industry being left(Note, this does not represent criticism of this basis, no not at all). So much of advertising consists of more or less blatantly false images and video, followed by a tiny text disclaimer.
As for the concerns mentioned at the end of TFS, I'm not sure I see the problem: this is arguably even more divorced from reality than cosmetics advertising, and the battle over pre-renders being pimped as "in engine"(recorded at 1FPS, with known-unusably-bugggy effects enabled with command line switches, on $10,000 workstation, played back at 30FPS, or just created by importing our highest resolution art assets into 3DSMAX...) in gameplay advertising has gone on for ages. As for 'photographer's own work', unless you assert that you, as a photographer, take 'pictures that objectively represent reality' rather than 'aesthetically pleasing pictures', why would photoshop be any worse than using a good lens or a low-noise sensor? In photojournalism, photochopping can be a serious problem; but in photography as art, you aren't making a truth claim, so it's pretty hard to lie...
As voluntary standards by a private industry body, this seems like an unimpeachable step. The issue would get a bit more dicey were the state to step in, you'd have to adjudicate the line between expressive free speech and commercial fraud through deception; but if the marketweasels want to clean up a small part of their slime trail, all the better...
Yeah, the trouble is, the people who want to walk around naked are generally the ones you'd least like to see undressed...
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
I actually agree with this. I don't use clothes at home either (or when browsing Slashdot), and if the weather permits, why should I need to use them outside either?
Hm, good question. Let me think about that for a while...
Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
That's why most people shouldn't be allowed to walk around naked.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Does the same thing apply to food advertisements?
Mark
Next we know, any misleading advertising will not be allowed anymore. That's just nuts. Where is the world heading to?
That's why in the future they all wear full-body spandex (see Star Trek)
Which of course is why the pictures of food NEVER look like what they serve you. On the plus side, you wouldn't really want to eat what they took pictures of.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
In my experience, woman that use more than a minimal amount, tend to look worse. Makeup in almost all cases is *way* too obvious.
It does tell me something of their thought processes, so I'm not too bothered. it's a useful metric.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Note that Adobe is still allowed to Photoshop ads for Photoshop, since that's what they're selling
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
On some tv commercials you'll see "Screen images simulated, sequences shortened." So what you're seeing is fantasy compared to how the phone actually works. Its a bit much.
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
they can do nothing
I'm not sure what we're alluding to. Does this mean that we'll see art that actually looks like something?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have to fraud men and thus try to gain money, power or anything else for their own advantage. It just isn't defined as fraud because the scheme has been going on for so long, but in reality it's the same. They're advertising something which they don't have and take advantage of men.
Don't worry, that all stops once you're married.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Its a silly thing. You all say *you're* so smart that you don't need to be protected, its all those *other* people who are dumber who need to be protected.
Does it bother you that beer ads show a guy gets to sleep with supermodels because he buys a six pack?
Does it bother you that car ads make the car look low-slung and sexy.
Does it bother you that people eating fast food are all in great shape?
Advertising is a fantasy. Are you so soft that you can't distinguish an ad from reality? Or do you think you're immune bur the rest of the world needs help?
Get over yourself. Nobody needs that kind of help. Or rather, those that need that level of help should be Darwined out of the gene pool anyway.
doesn't that logic actually suggest that everyone should go naked unless absolutely necessary for for temperature reasons?
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
If there are people alive today who don't know that they should be skeptical about advertising, they probably aren't watching American cosmetics ads anyway.
what part of "self-regulating" didn't you understand?
Women's use of cosmetics bordens with pure fraud. They're faking themselves better looks than they really have...
So? Stop buying them...
Right... actually something in you post suggest you aren't getting them for free, so you start blaming the "high prices" and "misleading advertising".
I know that they may look a bit alien/outlandish for you now, but maybe it will get better if you'll stop treating them as "burgers to be bought" and see them more as human beings?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The end product of cosmetics is an improved appearance. If an ad tries to sell cosmetics based on an appearance that the cosmetics themselves cannot deliver, that's fraud.
i want to see this for fast food to. What you get out of the bag is no where CLOSE to what you get served. Discovery channel did a great show about it. It takes several days to put together a picture of a big mac and fries. Airbrushed, bun molds, glue....
OK I think this is wandering off point a bit. The complaint is about using these techniques to try and sell you something by telling you that if you buy this product it will look like X when in reality it will not. So if the seller showed you an ad where you bought a pair of jeans and it turned your shirt red, but in reality did not, then you might have a point. But equating this to simply wearing close is off course.
Misleading advertising should be illegal anyhow. I don't see why this group should have to specifically ban it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Put a disclaimer on the photo and provide links to the source images used. If you're interested you can look it up. :)
A few years ago in the UK they ran a Dove soap advert with real women. They ran it just about everywhere. After a week of looking at those real women on my morning commute, I longed for the fake photo shopped lie. I don't expect pictures of beer gut real men on the cover of men's health either. Real is grim, lets live the lie
Well doesn't sound like anyone will be taking advantage of you, at least not while you have that rather sad, tiny-minded attitude! So women only make themselves look good to please men, eh? Hmmm, sure they do. I can only conclude you obviously don't speak to many women if that's what you truly believe!
You don't want to see me naked.
--
BMO "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?" - Airplane
Are you saying that if you get something for free, then there's no problem with fraud?
"She that paints her face thinks of her tail" - Ben Franklin.
Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
Should I link to goatse? Or would you propose to euthanise bad looking people? Or lock them out of sight?
BTW: what about the eye of the beholder?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
90 percent do
Besides, we can all agree that it's just nice to see good looking naked people.
Should I link to goatse? Or would you propose to euthanise bad looking people? Or lock them out of sight?
BTW: what about the eye of the beholder?
Have you seen goatse? Because I've only seen one part of him. He might actually be very handsome guy.
Do you consider makeup wearing persons a merchandise? In the last years, computer-mediated fraud is rampant: do you propose that we'd ban computers too?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
No one in the professional world uses Gimp, and if they do then they're doing this all wrong.
So how many millions were spent to bring truth to mascara advertising?
You know there are real problems in this world. Disease, famine, war, civil rights, the environment. Do we really need to worry about people touching up ads?
If I buy something and it doesn't do what it claims to do I return it or never buy it again. Why isn't buyer beware enough? If a company establishes a reputation for not doing what they claim their products should do then the company should suffer from poor sales or bad word of mouth.
How about a campaign to make the populace less vain, suggestive and ignorant rather then wasting millions protecting stupid people from wasting a few bucks on "miracle" products that don't work.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Called "truth in advertising".
I'd even go so far as to say I've seen what he's like on the inside.
Should I link to goatse? Or would you propose to euthanise bad looking people? Or lock them out of sight?
Yep, now you're getting it! Lock away everyone who isn't hot (besides me), and the world would look much better!
BTW: what about the eye of the beholder?
Well, beholders can fire a wide variety of pain and death from their eyes, which is why they're frequently a major hassle for the unprepared dungeon explorer, true, but I don't see how that relates to my entirely altruistic quest to leave only the hottest of girls... I mean, people... visible in public.
Car starting at $12,999! . . . as shown, $23,935
Super Double Cheeseburger With Triple Bacon . . . actual burger may not bear more than a passing resemblance to image
Sale! Item for $10 . . . plus $25 s/h even though FedEx only charges us $2.99
Fewer Calories! . . . because we decreased the recommended serving size
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I was honestly hoping the 'ban' was more oriented towards banning making models unrealistically thin, to where they look like stick cartoons. My spouse has anorexia, and that's one of the societal influences that makes the largest contribution to the disease.
I'm generally all for freedom of expression etc. there, but given what I see in her life, I wouldn't miss this one. Same as the deformed feet in China. This type of cost of freedom of expression is one of the few real ones that we need to better evaluate.
The majority of the worlds population lives in the northern hemisphere, where at the moment it is winter. Clothing is not optional for outside.
Are you implying that women are free? Last time I checked we were pretty expensive to keep around...
That's because the cake face is a lie.
She might look good from 20 feet away, but get closer than 10 and it's just sad and awful.
Sandytaru, I was curious about your nickname. Do you by any chance play Final Fantasy XI?
OK I think this is wandering off point a bit. The complaint is about using these techniques to try and sell you something by telling you that if you buy this product it will look like X when in reality it will not.
Well, that's even worse, because then the OP suggest anyone who wears makeup is trying to sell her/himself and they are trying to mislead you in the transaction (like in both are used to fake stuff.).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Yes, not all reasons are to look brettier in eyes of mens.... but they take as well advantage over mens when competiting with other womans with their look.
When it comes cosmetics, womens wants attention with it. Same way as does young kids by using trend cloths.
My strong opinion is, that every schoold kid should wear a school uniform. There is less teasing and bullying about cloths and who has enough money to buy most new cloths or other toys. If you can not be you, but you pretend to be you, it is just bad for everyone.
Womens try to compete with each other. They want to be good looking. Same thing is with some of the mens who as well use cosmetics and stylish cloths.
Many has dressing code for work, why not kids have same thing? We have dressing code for different situations, were they weddings, funerals, sport.... They are there for a reasons.
And faking something to sell it, is just lying to customers. Was it cosmetics or even technology (like operating systems), corporations are just trying to sell own crap over others. If people would really understand what they really are bying (I am not talking about mens and womens here!), it would make whole world better blace.
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
And in my observation, when they feel like they are unable to compete with other women, it tends to impact their self-esteem quite badly. In the end, I think that it's better to let them make themselves up in the way that they want to. Of course, it doesn't hurt to complement them when they aren't wearing any makeup either... and can probably help a woman feel like she doesn't need makeup to be attractive or to compete.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lets be honest, even with this being passed, does anyone honestly believe ads?
No amount of or lack of photoshop is going to change my mind here...
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Just because there's no directly money changing hands, it doesn't mean you aren't "selling yourself" when you make yourself look attractive. Likewise when you're getting a job, you're selling yourself and the benefits of hiring you to the potential employer. If you lie in these situations it is fraud.
All this proves is there is still a sucker born every minute.
This type of legislation will do what? People will still buy the product and be unhappy with the results.
Remember the old saying "A good product will sell itself", well there's no wonder why countries spend trillions a year in advertising.
...Apple, with their phones and tablets, insert a two word caption in their ads: "Sequence Shortened". So when you buy one of their products and find it takes a week to load up the notebook app, you have no grounds for complaint. Remember "Sequence Shortened"?
Same with '360 and PS3 games: "Not Gameplay Footage", "Not Representative of Gameplay"... if it doesn't represent what you're parting with £30-£60 for you should be told.
This gets around having to show how long it actually takes to load X app in a commercial: it pretties up the device making you want to buy it. I don't think there's anything wrong in that, but I do agree that if images or videos have been manipulated, the consumer SHOULD be informed prior to purchase. To not do so is misleading, it's dishonest, and in the UK it is illegal. This is why we have an Advertising Standards Authority which can and does pull misleading ads and publicly shames the company to which the ad relates.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
That would be awesome.
Are you implying that women are free? Last time I checked we were pretty expensive to keep around...
And this just shows that even women think they're selling themselves to men. Since the initial offering is an hoax to begin with, we should ban cosmetics and offer all the men refunds of their purchases.
what part of "self-regulating" didn't you understand?
Give him a break. He's young. Probably never had to use Metamucil.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
... what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?
Is that really enough? Does a mere prohibition of fraud and misdirection go far enough in promoting the transactional ideal of equal exchanges of value? What about omissions of fact? As I said to someone else in another unrelated discussion just last night:
Just because you harbor a desire to conceal facts that have probative value and are unquestionably relevant to determining the value of a contract does not mean that the other party therefore lacks the right to know those facts. If a particular fact is relevant to determining the value of a contract and you are entering into that contract willingly, then you no longer have any claim to conceal the fact as private. Can you get away with it if the other party is unaware or ignorant? Probably, but that doesn't mean you had a right to do it. The ideal transaction is one in which an equal exchange of value takes place. That is only possible if both parties are able to assess all relevant facts that affect the value of the contract. Business law and code recognizes this and seeks to prohibit unrestrained concealment and deception. If your reasoning became the official law of the land, then no contracts would ever be an equal exchange of value... one or both parties would always be denied some bit of information crucial to deciding the worth of the contract. I don't dispute this already takes place and always has, but at least the current system frowns upon and prohibits as much of it as reasonably possible.
Shouldn't we be demanding full disclosure as a matter of business code or law? What I was taught in business law courses - that transactional ideal - certainly implies it; we certainly expect it of each other ethically when we're a party in transactions, and are often shocked when we discover we were given less than candor. Shouldn't we codify this expectation once and for all?
Exaggerated advertising IS false advertising. I'm hopeful that all the lying on TV stops. It's out of control. It's the reason I stopped watching. I'm not about to pay people money to lie to me. I get that enough of that just dealing with my utility and phone company. Honest advertising is hard to find but when I do see it, I appreciate it. Honesty is not overrated. Lying in advertising was allowed to continue because no one was stopping it. I applaud regulation of lying. Next stop, politicians because again, they receive money for lying to masses of people. Too many professions to list and not enough fines. How about the next war we have is the War on Lying?
Why doesn't it apply to video games or food? Quite frankly if you're too embarrassed to show the actual product you're selling them improve it rather than lying to me.
Rub this powdered rock on your face, you'll look better!
Can't buy comedy like that.
To be fair, food photography is an entirely different issue. Pictures of food are rarely even pictures of food - they are models of the food, or actual food with a lacquered finish, or what have you. Real food that you actually eat doesn't look good on camera. If you allow the photographic subject to be a fake mock-up that isn't even the real product, then whether or not you allow Photoshop is largely irrelevant - if you can't Photoshop it, you'll just change the model to get the same effect.
Just because there's no directly money changing hands, it doesn't mean you aren't "selling yourself" when you make yourself look attractive.
Bottom line: just because someone is making oneself attractive, it doesn't mean the one is selling oneself (there can be many other reasons for doing it).
If somebody commits a fraud, imposing blanket ban on different objects/means that were used in defrauding is pointless.
On the case at hand: NAD banned a specific use of Photoshop in advertising, but did not blanket-ban Photoshop. This being said, please re-read the subject of the thread in the very formulation of the OP.
Questions?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
isn't that the company that makes Crest toothpaste, Head & Shoulders shampoo and Charmin bathroom tissue? I didn't know that they make cosmetics.
well, instead of using Photoshop, use GIMP instead. Gimp is free as in beer. support free software!
Can we return men then too and get refunds when it turns out they aren't the suave gentlemen they portray themselves to be while dating?
After all, by your logic, cleaning yourself up is "fake" as well. Humans don't naturally smell "clean" without the application of soap and water. So, if you're going to argue that women who use makeup are "faking stuff", since they don't really look that way naturally, by the same logic, so are people who take a bath. Or brush their teeth. Or trim their toenails. Or cut their hair.
Not everyone wants to go around looking and smelling like this guy.
...in the meantime, what have all these advertising standards watchdogs being doing about the huge great juicy McDonald's burgers filled with the crispest, freshest lettuce in TV adverts but that are impossible to actually buy in their restaurants?
Or the electrically inductive Coca Cola lorries capable of illuminating Christmas lights merely by driving past them? For how long in that advert am I actually shown the product that I am supposed to be buying?
Windows 10 is great - I used it to download Linux.
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
Wow, what an incredibly idiotic statement.
Photoshop is being used to make something in a photograph look differently from how it looks in real life. Cosmetics change the way you look in real life. They don't change the way you look without cosmetics, just like clothing doesn't change the way you look without clothes, but that's not the point.
If one were to take your idiotic argument to its conclusion, dieting and exercising are practically real life versions of Photoshop. After all, they make you look differently than you'd look if you didn't use them, right? This argument is no less idiotic when applied to clothing or make-up than it is in this case. There's nothing wrong with taking steps to change how you look, it's only deceptive if you don't take those steps, but digitally manipulate the photo to make it look like you did (e.g. add imaginary make-up, make yourself thinner, etc.)
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I actually wasn't suggesting banning, just supporting that cosmetics are fraud. I don't actually read the subject line so missed that there was actually a call to ban cosmetics. Though honestly I can't really think of any use, off the stage, that does not constitute fraud, so maybe they should be regulated like pyrotechnics.
Honestly I don't think we should ban cosmetics or the deceptive advertising. If women and men want to be gullible and fall for the fraud being perpetrated then that's on them. But that doesn't make it any less fraud.
I was going to say that it's funny they're claiming false advertising for make-up of all things. Isn't make-up the ultimate in false advertising? "Hey, look at me! I'm really pretty*" *Appearance has been completely altered by cosmetics.
Truer words have never been spoken on slashdot....
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
You've never seen private/catholic school girls tease each other over who looks better in their uniforms, huh? Any alleged money saved on uniforms gets spent on accessories and more expensive after-school clothing.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
You're right, but it still doesn't change the fact that cosmetics are practically real life version of Photoshop, and both are used to fake stuff.
They both help mislead what is being advertised as well. Only one will cost a lot more down the road...
This shall not stand! It tramples the God-given rights of our most Holy Corporation$!!!
The Watchdog hits! The Watchdog hits! You have lost your Reality Distortion Field!
Why can't we have some simple advertising laws like:
1. Images depicting products, in whole or part, shall depict the actual product as it is available to customers.
2. No advertisement (including testimonials) shall suggest that a product or service will or has effected any result unless the product or service will produce the same result for a substantial majority of customers.
3. Any advertised price must be the maximum final price to be paid by any customer in consideration for the advertised good or service during 7 days following the advertisement, or for the specific dates and times if clearly stated in the advertisement.
You don't need to use photoshop to [make burgers look good on camera](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUjz_eiIX8k)
Then you'll lie when you sell it. This kind of ban is long overdue. A touch of realism might also make that industry's effects on wider society marginally less poisonous to boot.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The change to honesty in advertising would be wonderful and extremely revolutionary. But it isn't going to happen. They don't have the power to enforce or implement this sort of a radical change. Of course I would love it but it's just not likely. Perhaps however this may spark the imagination and spur a popular movement for some kind of real truth in advertising policy happening. It would have to be a profound cultural shift. But if people get excited by this idea I think that the improvement in honesty in public dialogue (which our advertising is, even if we wish it wasn't) would be a godsend.
Personally I think a far more realistic goal (image manipulation is so inherently subjective the grey areas in the law could never have much effect) would be wonderful. I wish that we had a law stating that prices be stated straighforwardly and that certain standards of reporting were required. Like if you want to say: "FREE LUNCH" then you also have to write, in a font at least 25% as big, that the actual deal is 5 for the price of 4. That you must spend $80 to get $20 bonus. That the maximum saving is 25%. To say that the public should have basic math literacy obviously doesn't work. (People buy lottery tickets after all!) But if public dialogue (advertisiing) were forced to be honest mathmatically then that would improve our general math literacy.
This is the sort of thing Adbusters Magazine should be advocating for. Instead they decided to sell cool "unSneakers." Advertising is a really influential part of our culture from politics, to education, sex, poverty, the environment... every topic is part of it. Any move towards a more honest level of mass communication in our culture can only help. We certainly need it in our consumer obsessed, chaotic, environmentally falling apart world. Raise the level of dialogue!
Stupidity is its own reward.
So wall paint is also fraud? Or wallpaper?
This is not the funny you're looking for.
Not to mention frozen dinners, both microwaveable and stovetop.
So the photographers and designers will be forced to use GIMP from now on? Poor bastards!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Uh... no. It's not about taking advantage of men, per se, it's about an evolutionary drive to compete for men's attention. It's not about manipulating men, it's about competing with other women in an endeavor to appear more attractive, or distinctive, or otherwise noteworthy. Is it irrational? Of course it is... but it's still an evolutionary drive nonetheless, not some part of a hidden agenda to exploit other people.
It is completely rational to compete for social status.
Here is a site with real photoshop disasters:
http://www.psdisasters.com/
It's more fun than "Spot the difference".
You end up looking like a leathery smoker by the time you're 30, and if you use hair products you'll have thinning hair. Don't even tie your hair back or do cornrows/braids unless you want a receding hairline. Nothing wrong with the natural look anyway, girl or guy. Also, depending on your type of skin, lotions on your face may aggravate it and give you rashes or pimples, facial skin is especially sensitive. Just letting your skin's natural oils have a chance and only washing your face lightly with cold water is probably best. Btw if you're suffering from pimples then that's probably a good thing to try instead of all those products that just dry out your face.
Twinstiq, game news
Only problem is the filter eventually wears off.
Sweet informative mod.
If you're selling food, you can't do too much artificial.. No fake icecream made from mashed potatoes, no motor oil as syrup, etc. I used to work with a food stylist (these are the people who MAKE the food that's being photographed) and she used to do things like cook 100 cornish game hens and pick the very best looking 1 or 2. She spent hours at McDonalds going through thousands of buns looking for the "perfect bun". So what you get is a photo of a 3-5 sigma from the mean unit, photographed by a skilled artist who takes dozens of photos and picks the very best one.
The exact same process is used in fashion photography. They don't just yank some average schmoe off the bus and hand them the makeup and photograph it with an old Kodak Disk Camera..
No, they hunt for days, months, years to find an *exceptional* model (well out on the tail of the distribution, selected at audition from a population that is at least 3 sigma out already). then they have a professional apply the makeup and clothes and do the hair and everything. The photographer is skilled, etc.
You should see what the car stylists do with the "hero car" on TV commercial shoots. There are people there with cans of dust-off carefully removing individual flakes of dust that might have fallen on the car. The lights are positioned just so. They jack the car up to rotate the tire/wheel to just the right position and set it down. The tire is mounted on the rim in just the right position. there is this incredibly cool light box called a Fisher Light that they use to light it.
It is no more realistic than thinking that because some people can sink a jump shot from the half court line consistently, anyone can do it, or run 100 meters in 9 seconds, or whatever.
Whether it's food, cars, fashion models or anything... you are looking at the 99.99th percentile. They are quite literally freaks of nature who have won the genetic lottery and had a lucky life (since they happened to wind up with something desirable..) They could just has easily (i.e. astronomical odds against) have wound up on the other end of the distribution, wearing a sack over their head saying "I am not an animal"
Instead of trashing all post-production work, which could put a lot of people out of a job, why not just change the mandatory notification size? Kinda like they did for cigarette packages: a minimum of 50% of the front and back packaging must be a health warning advert (at least, that's how it is here in Canada).
Make it so they have to describe exactly what they did (e.g., altered skin tone, corrected blemishes and enhanced eyelashes, lips, nose and bust size) and legislate that they must make the size of the description a minimum percentage of the total advertisement size (maybe 30%?) and use font size scaled to the advert size instead of using text so small one has to pull out the magnifying glass to read it on a 55" HD plasma. That way people can see clearly for themselves which ones are the incredible lying fuckwads, and which ones aren't. Wouldn't that be nice?
Well...we made the tobacco companies comply with this, I don't see why we can't do so with beauty product advertisements...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Yes, just like the Concealed Weapon License, we need an Exposed Weapon License!
I was under the impression that all digital photos have gone through some kind of post production even before they come out of the camera they are manipulated to achieve various qualities.
You should ban alcohol too while at it, because it has far more effect on "ugly woman getting sex" factor then any amounts of makeup.
Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L11fQ6-QTIc
Do you buy your houses based on the wall color or wall paper? I'm quite sorry for you if you do.
- Toast
My own experience suggests that it is irrational.
Even women in highly devoted and monogomous relationships will put on makeup when going to events where they know that there will be other attractive women present. While in such a relationship, there is no need to gain the attention of other men, so the behaviour is irrational.
It's just an extension of the instinctive aspect of grooming.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
My school had a uniform, and I don't recall any teasing over it (at least, by other people wearing the same thing). Poorer students got theirs second hand, others got them new. I had a mixture because my parents thought the new price for some things (like the tie, for example) were stupidly high given that the second-hand ones looked almost the same. If anything, having a brand new uniform was looked down on as being a bit too poncy.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So wall paint is also fraud? Or wallpaper?
Does that wall paint disappear during the night, leaving you alone with a ghost house?
This will be interesting for food images. Photographs of real food are invariably unappetizing; we're hard-wired to recognize food that is just a little bit off. Professional food images are invariably made attractive through the use of some pretty unappetizing material, some of it not even edible.
Maybe Western food. Japanese, on the other hand, can be poetry on a plate.
A photographers ability to turn chaff into wheat with Photoshop should not be discounted. That's a skill. If not in ads, then in Xmas cards, family circulars, club news and... local advertising, where by the time anyone notices, nobody cares anymore...
Heck, I probably don't want to see you wearing clothes, but I don't think that justifies asking you not to go outside at all, ever. (Even though, since you're posting on slashdot, chances are high that you won't.) :)
This is the hardest I've laughed in a while.
absolutely.
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Women don't just wear make up to pick up other men.
Looking good signals to your peers that you know that you are healthy, clean, organized and know how to keep yourself together. If I go to a wedding wearing jeans and a T-shirt and unkempt hair, people would judge me in a negative way.
Of course they don't... they wear make-up to compete with other women. The thing is that they are doing it without even necessarily realizing that they are doing it... and in circumstances where it is not logically necessary, because how physically attractive a woman might be to others can be entirely irrelevant.
I see this as completely different from practicing good hygiene and realizing what sort of clothing may be appropriate for a particular occasion.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The very foundation of the Matrix being a falsehood, trouble awaits when enforcing this further. In general questioning the lies beyond the invisible line is rewarded with "excessive use of force".
You may choose many alternative realities. Wanted The truth? All and any of them are the truth, and there is nothing under the floor.
But is it ok to wear a rubber pee-pee in the nude pics that I post of me? Photoshopping Long Dong Silver's took too much work to get the colors right!
Also, look at the bright side. It took until over halfway down the comments page for some teabagger to go apeshit over imaginary demons. For /. that's a sign of improvement.
Someone had to do it.
ok, this is fucking ridiculous.
If I can't photoshop a picture of Julia Roberts, can I oil-paint a picture of Julia Roberts?
What if my oil-painting is really good?
What if, instead of using oil-paint, I use acrylic?
Or instead of a brush I use an air brush?
Or instead of real paint, I do it in the computer?
Instead of wasting time with this they should just regulate: all cosmetic product ads should prominently include a disclaimer:
Does Burger King photoshop their burgers? I was under the impression they do what everyone else does and hires one of those make-food-that-looks-good-but-is-actually-cardboard-and-toothpicks.
all I can says is : Go NAD !
If the picture shows a burger thicker than the bottom part of the bun, and the actual burger is about half the thickness of the bottom bun, then how can you believe there is not an intent to deceive? And yes, I have gotten some nice thick burgers at other places, so it would not be unreasonable for someone to expect the same from BK or a similar fast food joint when they put up a sign showing just such a product and telling customers to try the New Bait-n-Switch Burger
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I see nothing wrong with a woman wearing makeup if they want to. Just like carefully choosing clothes (which men do as well) it's a way to portray themselves in the best possible light.
By your logic, only people with perfect skin tone are actually beautiful, and that's a huge stretch.
I had a female friend who knew how to use makeup. I could watch her put it on, and when she was done I could look from fairly close and not be able to see anything that stood out as makeup.
I don't know why this is getting moded 'Troll' (other than the baning part is a bit overboard). It's completely true. Women use makeup, implants and surgery to make themselves into something they aren't in order to get what they want.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
So does this mean no more ads featuring a 55 year old woman who looks 75 peeling off her face to reveal a 35 year old who looks 20 underneath? With blonde hair.
The dermatologists will be pleased.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
cat, dog, and monkey Photoshops?
I'll miss those.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
In Florida we had a serious law suit over one hag's string bikini. She was old, skinny as a rail, shrunken and as ugly as a loaf of coyote poop. She was so bad looking that other seniors at the pool could not handle it and her condo was dumb enough to tell her she must wear an old fashioned bathing suit. She sued and won. The point being that although protection from misleading ads might be a blessing people do not always really want an eyeful of reality. Can you see it now "Buy this unremarkable, poorly designed, expensive, new car that will require a live in mechanic and a bottomless bank account." By your friendly local new car dealer.
It's actually hard to make photos of a lot of stuff, like food or flowers. A lot of stuff perishes very quickly under powerful hot lighting.
Long before digital manipulation there were real-world tricks. Very few of the things you'd see in a food add are the actual thing. A lot of it is wood, plastic and such.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
The cosmetics industry is obviously a good starting point â" but what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?"
All except the last would be a good thing.
This is a "truth in advertising" question. If your ad claims to show your product (or its result), then it should do so, otherwise you are deceiving.
The photographer does not show a product - the picture is the product, not whatever is on it. The model, the scenery, make-up, lighting, camera and Photoshop are all parts of the toolset he uses to create it.
In advertisement, the picture is not the product, it is about the product. If you know about levels of abstraction, it's really straightforward to see the difference and to understand why product advertisement should not be allowed to Photoshop the product itself. Everything else - fine. But that which you are selling should be as displayed.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
My brother-in-law's profession was a touchup artist for negatives. He got 35cents per blemish, for red-eyes, etc.
He could remove a pimple, or turn lemons into melons.
Cant use photoshop, print it in high definition, use the negative and then print it high definition.
So, back to negatives, and then back to scanning the prints. Kodak will be happy again.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Counter-argument: mosquitoes
"but what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos"
That would be great actually.
It's all about the self esteem of women, a trendy topic these days. Look girls, I'm sorry you have a hard time okay? Men have a hard time too. Have you tried buying beer lately? We must buy this brand or that brand, or beautiful chicks won't appear! STFU
It's slightly overreaching, but it just needs to be worded correctly.
If a product changes the appearance, then no photoshopping should be allowed. Compositing the image should be fine (eg cropping and color-correction for print.)
On the other hand, you routinely see advertisements for food, where the real food was not used. Ever see a commercial for a hamburger? Ever see what they really look like? McDonalds hamburgers tend to look the worst in real life compared to the ads. A&W and Wendys tend to look almost like the ads. Subway looks exactly like the ads except when the sandwich "Artist" has a bad day and skimps on everything.
Overall, if a product is selling "your" appearance, it should be unaltered, and is inexcusable (like the mascara commercials.) Everything else, "results not typical" is the same as "photoshopped." It's not hard to sell your product effectively, just find people who use the product and take before and after pictures. Then use the typical person. Done.
In 1975, my senior year in high school, my graphic arts class went on a field trip to a large commercial print house in San Francisco. This company had a photography studio with a kitchen in it, but I wouldn't recommend eating any food from there. Like Roast Turkey? It sure looks yummy after you cook it then spray it with silicone to make it look all shiny and juicy. Like a nice bubbling pot of soup? Just be careful not to swallow the marbles if they serve you a bowl of it. There were other things they showed us about industry secrets used to sell a product that were akin to false advertizing.
-Eric
Microsoft's Kinect ad uses CGI to show many applications of the technology which it clearly states are currently being done. But then a subtitle indicates in cryptic terms that the applications are 'visionary'. It's clearly deceptive and it's beneath that company's dignity. They should modify it. They could do essentially the same ad with a minor correction in phrasing. I like the rule here. If, absent the fine print's 180 degree correction, the main point or course of the ad is false, then the ad should not run.
Sure, ban Photoshop, but let's ignore all the other similar software both commercial, freeware, and open source.