Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I always found it a bit irksome that as photographers we rely on the power of imagery yet deny that power exists if outcomes are called into question. I'll always advocate that images have more power then we tend to give credit and inform our thinking in ways which are not easily identified. Adolescent boys are also victims here as may well be more affected judging from some of the indicators. Now, I doubt that glossy magazines and photoshop are the sole cause of the ever increasing prevalence of adolescent self-mutilation and suicide (suicide being the number 3 leading cause of death behind accidents (mostly motor-vehicle) and cancer) for 10-15 year olds, but one can't help wondering about the exploding "tween" markets, all the $$$$ to be made, and the across the board disregard to child safety. Instead of exploding gas tanks and cigarets we have false and manipulating advertising packaged for the sole purpose to convince young girls and boys they must look, act, feel, do ABC or they won't be popular, fit in, have friends, be desirable, etc. It's bad enough this is so prevalent for adults but leave the kids alone. This "tween" market advertisers are so eager to exploit amounts to a giant psychological experiment. It's best to keep you kids out of the lab and certainly don't contribute to it if you can, although I have lost the Disney battle at my house, I still don't have cable TV. At 02:38 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote: >I'm with you on this Chris. >I've spent too much of my life in the ad bus; >and glad to be winding it down. >I've not worked (much) in the fashion end of the business; >but the effect of these retouched dolls on our societies >and specifically on our young women's self esteem and self image >is a damn shame and very real. > >Ann's daughter is a beautiful 22 year old >and I watch her (and her mother) >watching this crap and doing daily battle >to achieve these impossible looks. > >They often don't even believe me >when I point out that scenes in movies >are made with body doubles and frame by frame retouching. > >I'd love to see the whole industry collapse; >makeup, surgeries, botox - all of it. > >It's one thing to stay healthy and fit; >quite another when you feel forced to >paint, starve, cut and paste to compete >in a world of illusions. > >I find women most beautiful >when they're feel perfectly comfortable with themselves >and the least makeup is applied. > >Regards, >George Lottermoser >george at imagist.com >http://www.imagist.com >http://www.imagist.com/blog >http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > >On Mar 18, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Chris Saganich wrote: > >>Well, we are on opposite ends of opinion (and the world). I have >>only contempt for glossy magazines and the entire industry >>including all advertising. From your arguments I feel as though >>your an Ad man of some sort, something I'm familiar with being in >>NYC many friends of mine make a living retouching images, in fact >>almost all the photographers I know call it their bread and butter >>these days. >> >>>This link is a practical example that we have shown our daughter. >>>http://demo.fb.se/e/girlpower/ad/retouch/index.html >> >>Click before and after on the breasts and sing a sea shanty. >>Breasts like that require surgery. >> >> >>>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. >>Voluntary codes? Your kidding right? Men's magazines as well not >>just the girls ya know! >> >>>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. >> >> Then they shouldn't retouch so many images. >> >>>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. >> >>So? Say it like it is. >> >> >>>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? ). >> >>The magazines which do not retouch, significantly altering body >>genotype, should be more expensive due the legislation. >> >>>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? >>Yes, Yes, Yes >> >> >> >>>Who sets the standards and for what contexts? >>>What would be the cost of implementation? >> >> >> >>>Would there be practical benefits? >> >>>Like ban on public smoking? Likely yes >>> >>>You can see how these ideas can balloon out of all proportion. >> >>I have no problem with balloons of great 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? >> >>For causal links, here is one of many recent meta-analysis. Start >>with all the references. >> >>http://psy6023.alliant.wikispaces.net/file/view/Article+for +PSY6023.pdf >> >> >> >> >>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DLoriginal.jpg.html >>>http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ns/DL.jpg.html >> >>Don't do this, it's a psychological disconnect which is likely to >>support negative body image for the girl. Why do something that >>increases the probability of a negative impact? Like not wearing >>seat belts...because you know your local hospital has a top notch >>trauma unit? There is no important justification here. I'm sure >>every likes the after photo, just like I like TV more when I'm >>stoned. Should I advocate doing drugs to make our TV experience >>better? Any disconnect with reality is addictive and potentially >>harmfull. >> >> >>>A retouching disclsure would be extensive and detract from the >>>appeal of the >>>photo too. >>Good. >> >>>Yet it included a bw conversion with contrast, individual colour >>>conversion adjustments, >> >>this doesn't significantly change body type, but, does have an >>impact about how you feel about yourself. The impact can go either >>way depending on what you do. There is more power to an image then >>your giving credit, and therefore more power in the hands of the >>image manipulator. My professional opinion is that through this >>kind of research we will see the beginnings of the real power of >>images on us and how we relate to the world, how we treat each >>other, and how we treat the world. I don't see any disconnect here. >> >> >>>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 >> >>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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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