Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > >But what do you do about tv? "throw out the TV, eat some peaches, and look for God" - John Prine >Leo Wesson >Photographer/Videographer >817.733.9157 >www.leowessson.com > > >On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at >gmail.com>wrote: > > > Hi Chris, anecdotally that causal connection seems commonly accepted. I > > do > > realise that you have just provided a link and mentioned the causal > > connection. This is not meant to be negative regarding your post. I do > > think > > it is an issue relevant for everyone with a digital darkroom and worthy > > of > > discussion. > > This link is a practical example that we have shown our daughter. > > http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/ad/retouch/index.html > > Here this issue has been raised to an extent, with a voluntary code for > > women's magazines especially, to follow. Another related issue is minimum > > age and weight standards for fashion models. Following media attention > > stirring popular opinion, some successful European models have been > > withdrawn from high profile shows here on age or weight issues. Yet we > > have > > 13 yr olds launching successful careers from cover photographs on Teen > > magazines. > > Your linked article doesn't contain any actual facts or detail, as is > > common > > for this kind of op ed piece. I want to avoid straying into areas such > > as the quality of media reporting, perceptions arising from advertising, > > personal responsibility and liability. > > I do have reservations regarding effectiveness for any legislation to > > require disclosure on retouching. > > > > Here are some points that come to mind for me: > > A meaningful disclosure on any fashion image would be complex and large. > > I > > don't see that as practical at all. It could easily double the size of a > > magazine for example. > > A generic warning (similar to a product health warning) may not be > > effective > > at all. It would realistically have to say that EVERY image in the > > magazine > > has been altered. The effect of such a warning label might be, more in > > the > > nature of "look we are doing SOMETHING" . > > Would the magazine just provide links where the information could be > > obtained? Would anyone go there except people interested in the field > > perhaps? > > Since many magazines are international in distribution, this could negate > > any national legislation anyway, editions unaffected by such legislation > > could be more desirable (cheaper? smaller? ). > > What about television and movie content? Do we require disclosure when a > > "stunt butt" stands in for the leading lady for unclothed scenes? > > Should disclosure extend to all printed or displayed images? > > Who sets the standards and for what contexts? > > What would be the cost of implementation? Would there be practical > > benefits? > > > > You can see how these ideas can balloon out of all proportion. > > > > In my opinion, this sort of issue sounds like a great idea at first > > glance > > but is grossly impractical to actually implement. Do you have any > > professional insights on practical effects or implementations that you > > are > > aware of? Can you share any views on what you think is appropriate or how > > that causal link could be approached? > > > > I sometimes take photos of my children (a lot!) and their friends if it > > is > > a > > party or similar. > > I've posted probably a 1000 or more images to the list (not only those > > subjects of course). All of those images have certainly had at least some > > modification with photoshop. > > Here's a more dramatic example, just for purposes of discussion that may > > be > > of interest. This is a young teen friend of my daughters. There were also > > gross problems with colour from the original processing (colour neg) and > > prints from them. > > The result pleased me,the subject and her family and I don't see any > > negative impact at all. Put in another context you could argue that it is > > unrealistic, promotes unhealthy expectations, negative body image etc. I > > see > > it as making an attractive and positive photograph. > > > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DLoriginal.jpg.html > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DL.jpg.html > > A retouching disclsure would be extensive and detract from the appeal of > > the > > photo too. Yet it included a bw conversion with contrast, individual > > colour > > conversion adjustments, obviously removal of skin imperfections, lines, > > texture and luminace, eyes altered in shade, detail, sharpness, tone even > > highlight adjustments, localised focus adjustments throughout etc etc. > > I think that the viewer can look and is well aware that the photo has > > been > > idealised. Similarly, surely people in general are aware that all printed > > photgraphs are subject to entensive modification before publication. > > There > > are millions published every year. > > > > > > > > 2009/3/18 Chris Saganich <chs2018 at med.cornell.edu> > > > > > Another reason I like the French. As a Public Health Professional I do > > see > > > a thread through image retouching, negative body image, and > > > psychological/physical harm through the entire population. > > > > > > < > > > > > > http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/opinion/op-ed/1194833176718/index.html#1194838469575 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > Geoff > > 'Pick up your Leica and make the best photo you can' > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ > > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information Chris Saganich MS, CPH Senior Physicist, Office of Health Physics Weill Medical College of Cornell University New York Presbyterian Hospital chs2018 at med.cornell.edu http://intranet.med.cornell.edu/research/health_phys/ Ph. 212.746.6964 Fax. 212.746.4800 Office A-0049